Thailand-- A Bad Vacation Destination This Year. Mali Rules

Headlines all over the world-- from Russia, Spain and the U.K. to Japan, China and Australia-- are talking about 100,000 tourists stranded by Thailand's political unrest. Last week on my travel blog, I told the story about a friend of Roland's who was emigrating to Thailand from Los Angeles and how he was dumped off on Taiwan. He's now made it to Bangkok, via Vietnam, and is happily using free wifi in his new apartment not far from Lumpini Park.

I hope he stays indoors, as violence in beginning to ramp up against anti-govenment demonstrators who have seized both Bangkok's airports and the prime minister's office. The protesters "have vowed to remain at Suvarnabhumi, which is a major international airport, along with the domestic Don Muang airport and the Government House, the country's top administrative center, until Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat steps down.

Thailand's vital tourism sector could lose more than $4 billion over the remainder of the year, officials estimate, and as many as 2 million tourists are expected to cancel plans to visit the "Land of Smiles." The national carrier, Thai Airways, is reportedly losing $14 million a day.

The government Thursday declared a state of emergency at the two airports and threatened to remove the protesters by force. But the next day, Somchai removed the chief of police for failing to move on the demonstrators. By late Friday, police were in position outside both airports, but no violence was reported.

The government has pledged to resolve the crisis peacefully, and the People's Alliance for Democracy has vowed to "fight to the death."

On Bangkok's Khao San Road, a legendary "backpackers' ghetto," concerns over lost luggage and reluctant insurers were rampant Saturday. Travel agencies, Internet cafes and barrooms were abuzz with complaints, mostly lamenting a lack of credible information and limited travel options.

It's uncomfortable and inconvenient for tourists in one of the world's most tourist-friendly and safest exotic destinations. But it's far worse for the Thais, even apart from their fragile economy taking a catastrophic hit. It doesn't look like this standoff is going to end without major deadly violence.

Western news sources have been describing the government as "populist" but it's an illegitimate right-wing kind of populism headed by the brother-in-law of corrupt former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, who has fled Justice and is living in a palace in Britain. Talks are getting nowhere. Aside from military intervention-- either a coup or an attack on the protesters-- another way out of the crisis could be a ruling by a constitutional court looking at campaign fraud cases against the government, something we covered, from Thailand a week shy of a year ago. Although the L.A. Times posits that the court could stir up even more problems than it solves.

A ruling against the government and its allies, which would be welcomed by demonstrators who have seized two major airports to press for Somchai's ouster, is likely to provoke counter-protests from his supporters.

Pro-government leaders, who call their movement the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship, suggested at a rally Sunday that the court was conspiring with the opposition by moving up the date for a ruling. They have threatened to drive the opposition from the airports if police fail to do so.

Many Thais, who don't fall into either the yellow-shirted opposition alliance or the red-shirted camp backing Somchai's government, suffer through their country's continued political instability.

For months now, each apparent solution has ushered in a new crisis, and more bloodshed. Grenade attacks on anti-government demonstrators are almost a daily event, and tensions are growing as rival camps threaten to assault each other and rumors of an impending coup spread.

UPDATE: NEW TACTICS

Monday's NY Times is reporting that the demonstrators have effected a change in tactics which focuses more on the airports and less on the prime minister's office. There are approximately 300,000 stranded tourists and Thailand's economy is down by $2-3 billion. Airlines have started flying tourists out of the country through other airports.

Blue America 2006 Candidate Update

Donna Edwards (D-MD), 2008's biggest winner

A number of people have asked me how Blue America's 2006 candidates did this year. The short answer is that they did pretty well. First off, each of our winning candidates from 2006 has won re-election. That includes the ones we re-endorsed, the ones we felt were strong enough to win without our help, the ones who we were neutral on and the one member, Chris Carney, who we worked to defeat.

In 2006 Donna Edwards lost a closely contested primary against corrupt hack Al Wynn. Many observers are certain that he managed to steal that election. He went on to win re-election in the general with 82% but lost the primary in 2008 to Donna (by a substantial margin), then resigned to become a lobbyist, giving Donna a leg up on all other congressional newcomers. This time she did even better than Wynn did in the general, taking a hefty 86% of the vote (252,524, the highest numbers of any Democrat running for the House in a contested election, even edging out Hoyer and Van Hollen in Maryland)! Bring that up next time someone tells you it's a center-right nation.

We had two candidates in California last cycle, Charlie Brown and Jerry McNerney. Jerry edged out Dirty Dick Pombo 88,883 (53%) to 78,223 (47%). This year the GOP targeted him and poured money into the campaign of right-wing extremist Dean Andal. McNerney wracked up a 10 point margin, 156,016 to 126,843. Charlie Brown almost beat John Doolittle in 2006, 104,746 (49%) to 97,217 (46%). Doolittle decided to retire from politics and Charlie fought it out with lunatic fringe Republican Tom McClintock in the reddest district seriously contested by a Democrat anywhere. The contest is still not called, as the vote count proceeds. Last official numbers showed a 50/50 break, with McClintock leading Charlie 169,957- 169,335.

In 2006 Blue America helped the Democrats defeat 3 far right GOP incumbents in Pennsylvania. Our three winners turned out to be a bit disappointing and we didn't re-endorse any of them this year. Two are decent moderates, Joe Sestak and Patrick Murphy and I was happy to see each increase his margin of victory substantially. Sestak went from a 56% in 2006 to 60% this year and Murphy went from a 50/50 close call in 2006 to a 57% triumph this year. The only former endorsee Blue America has ever subsequently opposed is dishonest reactionary Chris Carney, a homophobic, anti-choice Blue Dog and even his margin of victory managed to creep up slightly from 53% in 2006 to 56% this year.

New York was also a happy hunting ground for Blue America in 2006. Our primary candidate, John Hall, who we re-endosed in 2008, increased his support in the district substantially and, even though he was targeted by the GOP he went from a 51% victory in 2006 to a 58% victory this year. Our other two incumbents, Mike Arcuri and Kirsten Gillibrand, turned out to be moderate Blue Dogs and we didn't re-endose either. Both won re-election, Arcuri, just barely (51%, down from 54% in his pre-Blue Dog days) but Gillibrand with 62% against millionaire Big Biz Republican, Sandy Treadwell, who is hated by local right-wing loons who refused to vote for him. Our big victory in New York this year, though, was in the 29th CD, where Eric Massa re-engaged with Bush rubber stamp Randy Kuhl. In 2006 Eric got 93,974 votes (48%) against Kuhl's 99,926 (52%). This year persistence paid off and Eric took 131,646 votes (51%), helping to send one of the most pathetic members of Congress into early retirement.

Another of our second tries, this one in North Carolina, went even better. In 2006 Larry Kissell was viewed as too progressive by Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC and he was on his own with only grassroots support. He managed to nearly deadlock multimillionaire incumbent Robin Hayes 60,926 to 60,597. This year both parties turned out the voters and, after Hayes joined the Michele Bachmann crazy train, Larry slaughtered him, 155,746 (55%) to 125,355 (45%), one of the worst showings for any incumbent anywhere.

New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes coasted to re-election, increasing his 52% win in 2006 to a comfy 57% this year. It was much the same story for Bruce Braley in Iowa where his 55% win in 2006 increased to a 64% landslide this year. Unfortunately a third party candidate in Ohio's second CD worked out badly for Vic Wulsin. Although Mean Jean Schmidt's percentage of the vote decreased from 51% in 2006 to 45% in 2008, Vic was unable to capitalize on it, with 18% going to a third-party candidate.

And speaking of third party candidates, the Blue America endorsee from the 2006 Democratic primary in Florida's 13th CD, Jan Schneider, ran as an independent this year, helping to keep Blue Dog Christine Jennings out of Congress, a worthwhile accomplishment. Jennings went from a 50/50 loss in 2006 to just a 38% share of the vote this year, despite massive amounts of cash from Blue Dogs, the DCCC and other Establishment Democrats.

UPDATE: 3 OTHER DEMOCRATS WHO PASSED THE QUARTER MILLION VOTE MARK BESIDES DONNA

Tammy Baldwin (274,973), Chaka Fattah (267,605) and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (255,991)

Mitch McConnell Going Moderate? I Wouldn't Count On It

caption contest in comments

No one has been a worse obstructionist to a positive progressive agenda in the past two years-- other than George Bush-- than Mitch McConnell, who basically spent virtually all of his time since the 2006 midterm elections knocked the GOP into the minority, filibustering one proposal after another. Today's NY Times refers to him as Senator No. And although Senator No just won his toughest ever re-election battle and is "safe" for 6 more years, he just watched Senate seats in Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Alaska, Oregon and North Carolina go from red to blue (incumbent colleagues having been defeated in the four latter cases). Two seats remain undecided, a razor thin recount in Minnesota that may have to be decided by the Democratic-led Senate itself, and a close run-off in Georgia. And regardless of what happens in Minnesota and Georgia, 2010 offers the surging Democrats an opportunity to take the GOP entirely out of the legislative game. Republican-held Senate seats likely to be captured by Democrats include states where Obama triumphed, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio and North Carolina. And Democratic strategists see opportunities to take away red seats in states where McCain won, Louisiana, Missouri and McConnell's own state of Kentucky, where there have been persistent rumors that the other KY senator, Jim Bunning died several years ago. There may be not be much McConnell can do to resuscitate Bunning or his miserable political career, but he certainly knows that presiding over another half dozen Senate defeats in 2 years will end his own, at least on the national state.

So what's a corrupt, reflexive reactionary like McConnell to do? Does he go whole hog back into obstructionist mode like GOP extremists from Know Nothing states-- Jim DeMint (R-SC, who wants his job), James Inhofe (R-OK), the loony Wyoming twins, Johnny Isakson (R-GA), David Vitter (R-LA), John Kyl (R-AZ), John Cornyn (R-TX)-- are demanding? Or does he steer his caucus in a more moderate direction and support the popular new president's efforts to pull the country out from the mess created by years and years of failed Republican policies?

There is also anger and frustration from the confused, pissed-off Republican base. The GOP grassroots is up in arms and a lot of their animus is being directed towards McConnell, Boehner and other Inside the Beltway hacks.

The California Republican Party has an idea for a path back to power, and McConnell isn't on it. Neither is House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Meeting in San Diego, the board of directors of the California GOP recently passed a resolution "expressing concern about Republican leadership in Washington, D.C."

The resolution states that "since losing our Republican majorities in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in 2006, our Republican leadership in the Capitol has failed to unify Republicans against obscene and wasteful federal spending such as expanding entitlements, approval of the ever-bloated farm bill, and support for an irresponsible federal government 'bailout' of Wall Street that included no institutional fixes to ensure government intervention in the market would be curtailed."

The Californians also criticized Republican leaders in Washington for failing "to present a clear distinction with the Democrats because of their inability to unify Republicans against big government spending like the programs mentioned above."

Is there any real push for moderation inside the Republican caucus? Presumably Olympia Snowe, the last remaining moderate Republican is pulling in that direction. No one, except Democrats, cares what she says. Susan Collins, fresh from an electoral victory that leaves her safe for 6 years and filled with anger towards Democrats and a yen for revenge, can't be counted on. Before Arlen Specter, if he runs again, faces off against a moderate Democrat in 2010, he is likely to have to beat off an extreme right wing lunatic fringe Republican in a no holds barred primary. Like Specter, George Voinovich (R-OH), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Mel Martinez (R-FL) are mainstream conservatives up for re-election in two years and all could face primary challenges from the far right fringe of their own party if they are seen as favoring "collaboration with the enemy."

The Times calls McConnell "genteel" (which is an absurd way to refer to someone who was kicked out of the army for grabbing an enlisted man's private parts) and "cagey," and offers some hope that he may be turning over a new leaf.

Senator McConnell is pronouncing President-elect Barack Obama off to a good start with an opportunity “to tackle big issues and to do them in the middle.” We have heard it before. Yet the heartening twist from the minority leader, newly re-elected after a race he found too close for comfort, is that he is quoting from Mr. Obama to make his point, retrieving a bit of prophecy from 2004, when the Democrats despaired in the minority and Senator Obama observed: “Whoever’s in power is going to have to govern with some modesty and some desire to work with the other side of the aisle. That’s certainly the approach I would advise Democrats should we regain control.”

Sounds like what McConnell has actually been saying, though, is that as long as Obama adopts Republican policy positions, he'll go along with him. Last week he promised the radical right Federalist Society that he would do his best to undermine President Obama's judicial nominees. According to McConnell "judicial nominees who have identified themselves with political causes in line with the interests of favored groups, including some of the politically correct ones identified by Obama during the presidential campaign, might not be able to keep their oath to uphold the law." I kind of think the Times was a little naive in its assessment today. A view from some Villagers:

The Great (Democratic) Divide

There may be a debate raging Inside the Beltway over whether America is a center right nation-- as espoused by self-serving, reactionary corporatists and money grubbers like Doug Schoen-- or a center left nation, the conclusion of Democrats who aren't putting personal self interest first, but the debate is anything but academic. With the greed and selfishness contingent of nominal Democrats from deep in the bowels of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party seeing another cash-in opportunity for themselves and their cronies-- the Robert Rubins, Rahm Emanuels and Doug Schoens of the avaricious side of Democratic politics-- the debate gets mighty personal.

And when idealism and social good go up against personal greed... well, greed usually holds its own pretty well. If that weren't the case there would be no Republican Party, let alone craven Blue Dogs and a Republican wing of the Democratic Party. But no one has framed the ultimate meaning of the debate better than former Labor Secretary Robert Reich in a HuffPo essay on the argument of the rebirth of Keynes. Like most people who put the needs of society ahead of self interest, Reich argues that Obama should get behind a massive stimulus package "focused on building and repairing the nation's crumbling infrastructure, providing help to states to maintain services, and investing in new green technologies in order to wean the nation off oil."

Most Republicans and their right-leaning Democratic fellow travelers don't see it that way, although even some right-wing economists like Greg Mankiw are slowly waking up to reality. Reich hopes they'll be open to the most basic lessons of Keyesianism, that "when the economy has as much underutilized capacity as we have now, and are likely to have more of in 2009 and 2010 (in all likelihood, over 8 percent of our workforce unemployed, 13 percent underemployed, millions of houses empty, factories idled, and office space unused), government spending that pushes the economy to fuller capacity will of itself shrink future deficits."

Conservative supply-siders, meanwhile, will call for income-tax cuts rather than government spending, claiming that people with more money in their pockets will get the economy moving again more readily than can government. They're wrong, too. Income-tax cuts go mainly to upper-income people, and they tend to save rather than spend.

Even if a rebate could be fashioned for the middle class, it wouldn't do much good because, as we saw from the last set of rebate checks, people tend to use extra cash to pay off debts rather than buy goods and services. Besides, individual purchases wouldn't generate nearly as many American jobs as government spending on infrastructure, social services, and green technologies, because so much of we as individuals buy comes from abroad.

So the government has to spend big time. The real challenge will be for government to spend it wisely -- avoiding special-interest pleadings and pork projects such as bridges to nowhere. We'll need a true capital budget that lays out the nation's priorities rather than the priorities of powerful Washington lobbies. How exactly to achieve this? That's the debate we should be having between now and January 20 or 21st.

Most of the Democratic members of Congress are right in the middle of this debate. On the one hand you have Democrats, like the Blue Dogs, who are basically almost as bad as Republicans-- your David Borens, John Barrows, Jim Marshalls, Heath Shulers, Gene Taylors, Chris Carneys, Joe Donnellys, Melissa Beans-- and on the other hand, real Democrats like Donna Edwards, Tammy Baldwin, Jim McGovern, Linda Sánchez, Jesse Jackson, Jan Schakowsky, Ed Markey, John Olver. But between Xavier Becerra and Hank Johnson on the left and Ron Kind and Dennis Moore on the right, you have about 150 Democrats in the middle, liable to swing in any direction depending on circumstances. Many of these will be eager to take a lead from Obama... at least until he does something drastically wrong. And if you want to know what direction he's going in-- well, we'll all have to wait and see... or just read a lot of Digby

What Is It With The Republican Party And Toxicity? Why Are they So Drawn To Poisons?

As Bush prepares to disappear from public life-- utterly delusional to the bitter end-- his regime is unrelenting in causing as much harm and mayhem as they can. Earlier in the week the L.A. Times reported that the White House was pressuring the EPA to ease rules on lead emissions. Is it because Bush hates Americans-- especially children-- and wants them to wind up with learning disabilities so they are more likely to vote Republican? Or is it because he's being bribed by companies that thrive on pumping tons of toxic gases into the air?

Looking to bolster the fight against childhood lead poisoning, the Environmental Protection Agency last month approved a tough new rule aimed at clearing the nation's air of the toxic metal.

But at the last minute, federal documents show, the Bush administration quietly weakened a key provision, exempting dozens of polluters from scrutiny. A new network of monitors that is to track lead emissions from factories has been scaled back.

Critics say the change undermines a rule that otherwise has been widely hailed as a powerful step in protecting children's health.

The federal rule was prompted by compelling research showing lead is more dangerous than had been thought. Even low levels of the toxic metal in young children have been linked to learning disabilities, aggression and criminal behavior later in life. Many scientists say there is no safe level of exposure.

It's a slow news day but the NY Times piped in on yet more extremely antisocial tendencies among Republicans today as well. This time they're working into the wee hours of the night to implement a new rule to further damage American working families before Obama can stop them. Mitch McConnell's traitorous wife beard, a puppet of the Chinese government, has ordered the Labor Department to cement a rule in place that "would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job." This is a proposal that was "strenuously opposed" by Senator Obama. Again, Big Business has been paying off GOP politicians to do this for them before its too late. None of the "businessmen" or the political hacks they bribe have been indicted, arrested or even investigated.

Public health officials and labor unions said the rule would delay needed protections for workers, resulting in additional deaths and illnesses.

With the economy tumbling and American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush has promised to cooperate with Mr. Obama to make the transition “as smooth as possible.” But that has not stopped his administration from trying, in its final days, to cement in place a diverse array of new regulations.

The Labor Department proposal is one of about 20 highly contentious rules the Bush administration is planning to issue in its final weeks. The rules deal with issues as diverse as abortion, auto safety and the environment. One rule would make it easier to build power plants near national parks and wilderness areas. Another would reduce the role of federal wildlife scientists in deciding whether dams, highways and other projects pose a threat to endangered species.

Mr. Obama and his advisers have already signaled their wariness of last-minute efforts by the Bush administration to embed its policies into the Code of Federal Regulations, a collection of rules having the force of law. The advisers have also said that Mr. Obama plans to look at a number of executive orders issued by Mr. Bush.

A new president can unilaterally reverse executive orders issued by his predecessors, as Mr. Bush and President Bill Clinton did in selected cases. But it is much more difficult for a new president to revoke or alter final regulations put in place by a predecessor. A new administration must solicit public comment and supply “a reasoned analysis” for such changes, as if it were issuing a new rule, the Supreme Court has said.

Yes, it's true... Clinton did it too. As he was leaving the White House, he promulgated rules meant to remove poisonous, deadly arsenic from the drinking water. In Bush's first week he abrogated that rule. So isn't it fitting that in his last week he also work hard to do as much damage to ordinary Americans as he did when he started? After all, he was crowing today about how his values haven't changed one bit since he first stole the White House. And neither has the GOP's. These criminals haven't learned a thing, as right wing extremist Mark Sanford (R-SC) demonstrates in another one of his self-serving idiotic screeds in Politico.

The people of South Carolina made their bed, shit all over it and now have to sleep in it. Don't worry about them; most of them thrive on it-- always have too. Fortunately, the rest of us have decided to move on. "In September, Mr. Obama and four other senators introduced a bill that would prohibit the Labor Department from issuing the rule it is now rushing to complete. He also signed a letter urging the department to scrap the proposal, saying it would 'create serious obstacles to protecting workers from health hazards on the job.'”

The Labor Department rule is among many that federal agencies are poised to issue before Mr. Bush turns over the White House to Mr. Obama.

One rule would allow coal companies to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. Another, issued last week by the Health and Human Services Department, gives states sweeping authority to charge higher co-payments for doctor’s visits, hospital care and prescription drugs provided to low-income people under Medicaid. The department is working on another rule to protect health care workers who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on religious or moral grounds.

Should William Kristol Be Tortured? Wouldn't Treatment In A Mental Hospital Be More Humane?

Neo-fascist father Irving (l) and pied son William Kristol (r)

Earlier this morning we talked about the barbarism of jihad, an integral part of one of the three primitive-- and long outdated, now poisonous-- Abrahamic belief systems. You don't only find this kind of poison, though, among the religionists and their pathetic brain-washed victims. This morning William Kristol, basically secular offspring of severely confused, demented neo-fascist orthodox Jews, Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb-- who would swing from the far left to the far right depending on which paranoid nerve receptor was working on which day. With this kind of mental illness untreated, society winds up with... William Kristol, spewing his hatred and bigotry on the editorial pages of a NY Times that would probably give Josef Goebbels a column in the interest of "balance" and their self-serving conception of "fairness." Kristol the Younger's latest exploration of moral turpitude and mental illness is on display in his less savory outlet, the Weekly Standard. Basically, he wants Bush to pardon all the torturers and wiretappers before he's officially relegated to the garbage heap of history. (Kristol knows he doesn't have to make a plea for the bribers and bribees of whose reign at the top of the Culture of Corruption were the real crowning achievement of decades of GOP misrule. That goes without saying.)

After urging Bush to start at least one more war in the few weeks remaining of his ill-starred term, Kristol expects Bush to suddenly become a communicator.

Bush can explain to Americans just how his administration's detention, interrogation, surveillance, and other counterterrorism policies have helped keep us safe. If he lays out the case for them publicly-- as his appointees are surely doing to their transition counterparts privately-- he'll make it easier for the incoming Obama administration to back off rash promises and continue most of the policies. This would be a real service to the country. It would also force a rethinking, by those capable of rethinking, of the cheap and easy demagoguing on issues like Guantánamo and eavesdropping. Over time, Bush might even get deserved credit for effective conduct of the war on terror.

I can't remember reading such delusional drivel even from a nutcase like Kristol, still raging about keeping Guantánamo open and about how popular Bush's policies are. But, as I said, the real purpose of Kristol's latest screed is to add his (again) to the chorus of fascists demanding all the war criminals and anti-American domestic terrorists be pardoned for their crimes.

Bush should consider pardoning-- and should at least be vociferously praising-- everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.

Some think that if the torturers had waterboarded traitors like Kristol and prevented him and his ilk from goading us into a catastrophic war whose flames he's still fanning, they would indeed deserve medals of honor. I'll have to consider that carefully before I endorse it. Old liberal that I am, I tend to think that torture is always wrong, even for someone like William Kristol. Pies in the face on the other hand...

Blue America Welcomes Back Congressman-Elect Tom Perriello

When Mitchell Wade's lawyer used the fact that he had turned over corruption evidence against 5 members of Congress to plead for a reduced sentence, the response from all quarters was pretty much, "Who else besides Virgil Goode?"

The first time I met Tom Perriello, the politically unconnected, idealistic young progressive who had decided to take on Goode, a deeply entrenched six-term fixture in south-central Virginia, he told me he planned to defeat Goode without making an issue out of the Culture of Corruption. It didn't work in 2006 and Tom felt his values approach was a much better fit for the voters in VA-05. Instead he ran a positive campaign focused on solutions for the economy and offering a better plan for bringing jobs back to this hard-hit district. He was right. He actually out-performed Obama in the district by around 1,300 votes, primarily because he picked up unexpected-- by everyone but Tom-- support from independents and moderate Republicans sick of Goode's extremism. For anyone who wants to delve beyond the archived blog session we had with Tom back on June 28, Adam Serwer's exhaustive wrap up piece for the American Prospect makes a very worthwhile read.

Even on election night when it looked like Tom would win I said that Goode would have to be dragged out of his office, probably chained to his furniture. When the Danville Register, in the reddest part of the district, endorsed Tom, they mentioned they hadn't endorsed a Democrat for Congress since Goode was a Democrat. They'd supported him since 1996 but, they pointed out what so many people in VA-05 were feeling: "We haven’t left Virgil Goode. Virgil Goode has left us."

Anyway, in one of the closest congressional elections anywhere (158,712 to 157,967), Tom managed to win a real cliffhanger several days after most of the Blue America victors had started packing for the move to DC. Although the Virginia Board of Elections certified Tom's 745 vote victory, Goode has refused to concede and is demanding a recount, viewed by most people as pointless-- but costly.

There are 22 localities where the votes have to be recounted. Goode has two volunteer lawyers lined up for each locality. The state GOP is giving him massive support but no one is willing to say what they are spending.

Team Perriello plans to have one volunteer at each locality. They’ve already hired a legal team and believe the recount will cost them $100,000. That’s money the campaign still has to raise.

...The recount is simply a test to see if the vote tallies were recorded correctly. They’ll review computer printouts, re-run optical scan ballots, and count paper ballots by hand. No voting irregularities will be brought up at this time. It’s simply a check of the vote.

Officials with the State Board of Elections say the recount will be complete before Christmas, possibly as early as the second week of December... The results of the recount are final and cannot be appealed. According to Virginia code, the losing candidate’s only option is to challenge the results in court.

If anyone would like to join me help defray the costs to Tom's campaign of this recount, Act Blue has kept his election site open for this very purpose and you can donate through our Blue America page. Eighteen of our congressional candidates won this year (9, including Tom, by defeating incumbents); let's not watch Virgil Goode reduce that number. Please come over to Firedoglake at 2pm (EST) today and spend an hour with us getting an update from Tom.

Civilization Clashes With Barbarism

The siege at the Taj is over and the gruesome task of figuring out the identities of the piles of dead bodies scattered throughout the hotel is being attended to. The initial estimates of 80 dead is now double that-- and rising. The one captured terrorist, a 21 year old Pakistani, Ajmal Amir Kasab, was a laborer with a 4th grade education. In coming days we'll hear about which madrassah had taught him about jihad.

The Somali Muslims who have made piracy their country's #1 foreign currency earner this year don't wrap their bloodthirsty savageness in pious religionist statements. They're honest enough to admit they're just... pirates.

Call Saudi King Abdullah a pirate and make sure you're not inside The Kingdom. He told the Kuwaiti paper Al-Seyassah that the price of oil is way too low.

"We believe the fair price for oil is $75 a barrel," he said, without elaborating on how this would be achieved. Whereas crude stood at about $147 a barrel in mid-July, it now hovers about $90 lower. On Friday, the U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude for January delivery was trading at about $54 per barrel.

The king was echoed by Qatar's Oil Minister Abdullah Bin Hamad al-Attiya, who told the Arab news channel Al-Arabiya just before the opening of the meeting of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries Saturday that prices needed to rise to guarantee investment into the oil sector.

"The price between 70 to 80 (dollars a barrel) is the one encouraging in investment and developing new or current oil fields. It falls below 70, the investment would freeze, which will lead to a crisis in supply in the future."

Bad timing. The world has been watching Muslim religionist fanatics-- fueled with the same kind of hatred that fuels homophobic Mormons in the West and fundamentalist snake-handlers in the South-- indiscriminately throwing hand grenades and firing machine guns into crowds of random people (some, no doubt, their co-religionists). I know India enough to tell you that even if this catastrophe doesn't propel the far right Hindu nationalist party, the BJP, to power, it will certainly lead to communal violence. An Op-Ed in yesterday's Washington Post by Dileep Padgaonkar, a former editor of the Times of India, explains how the Mumbai massacre is a threat to "India's secular and democratic polity." He warns that the timing of the attacks, on the eve of provincial elections-- Delhi, sometimes called "the Caliphate," is voting today-- will sharpen the differences between the secular Congress Party and the neo-fascist BJP.

After terrorist attacks in the past, the BJP has denounced the Congress party as being soft on terrorism in an effort to mobilize India's substantial Muslim vote in its favor. The Congress, in turn, attacks the BJP and its affiliates for bashing Muslims in order to consolidate its core Hindu vote. Indians have a peculiar word to describe this state of affairs-- communalism, meaning a determined bid to exploit religious sentiments for electoral gain.

The effect of this competitive demagoguery has been disastrous on many counts. Terrorism suspects have been picked up at random and denied legal rights. Allegations of torture by police are routine. Questions have been raised about the "encounters" between police and terrorism suspects. Suspects have been held for years as their court cases have dragged on. Convictions have been few and far between.

Commissions set up to investigate particularly gory incidents of religious violence have taken their time to produce reports. Few are opened for public debate. The recommendations in these reports have been routinely ignored or else implemented in a highly selective manner. Muslims convicted in some cases have been punished while Hindus have been let off lightly or not punished at all.

As a consequence, India's Muslims have begun to lose faith in the Indian state, its institutions and its instruments. This has led to the radicalization of Muslim youths. Religious extremism has pushed them onto the path of violence. Increasing evidence suggests that some have joined the ranks of the international jihadist movement with close links to terrorist groups in neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh. Here in India, these groups are widely believed to collude with those countries' intelligence agencies.

Whether it's hate-infused, self-righteous Mormons or Muslims or Hindus or Christians or Jews, there really is no place for religionist fanatics in a civilized community. These primitive, barbaric belief systems are something that will have to be dealt with if mankind is going to survive as a species. It's long past time we stop coddling and even honoring these dangerous fanatics among us. Their path will only bring on repression and regression to their own barbarism. Religionist fanatics should be treated as the mentally deranged and sick people that they are-- and should be treated, compassionately, for their illness. In Nigeria over 10,000 people have been killed in religionist outbursts so far this decade-- and this week will probably bring it beyond 11,000. Wouldn't they be better off going back to worshipping trees and rocks? Wouldn't we all?

The Parasite Class Caused The Current Economic Dislocations And They Have Every Intention Of Pointing The Way Down The Road

Today the NY Times has provided a redundant service to its readers by voicing, in an Op-Ed, suggestions for handling the economic downturn by one of its greed-obsessed authors. I say "redundant" because that is pretty much all one hears about the economic downturn-- the masters of the universe telling us how badly we've screwed up-- by following their lead without examining their always selfish motivations-- and what to do about it. Stephen Roach will, of course survive when all those who follow his advise are underwater; he's the Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia. He hasn't been arrested, indicted, charged with any crimes-- and in all likelihood he'll be getting a Christmas bonus this year equal to the annual wage of 10 people who, unlike himself, do actual work for a living.

Before Roach was promoted, he was Morgan Stanley's chief economist for 16 years-- and one of America's most famous bears, perennially warning about consumerism, the mainstay of the lifestyle of his parasitic class. After 9/11 Bush asked for no sacrifices from Americans, only that they go shopping. In the midst of the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression-- brought on, incidentally, by the exact same underlying Republican policies of unfettered greed and selfishness-- the slower-witted among us are being told that shopping is patriotic... and the way to bring back the economy. Oddly, no one ever suggests trials and firing squads for the "businessmen" and their bipartisan political enablers who raped and pillaged that economy.

When Roach says "it's game over for the American consumer," he wasn't referring to Jdimypai Damour, the 34 year old WalMart employee who was trampled to death-- doesn't that only happen in China or did that get globalized too?-- at 5am from a crowd of... super-patriots. No WalMart executive have been lynched, indicted, charged, arrested... or anything.

Witnesses said the surging throngs of shoppers knocked the man down. He fell and was stepped on. As he gasped for air, shoppers ran over and around him.

I've been to almost 100 countries. When people ask me which one I liked least I always say Hong Kong and I always paint a nightmarish fantasy like the one above as the reason why. But I grew up within walking distance of the Valley Stream (Long Island) mall where the possible WalMart publicity stunt occurred. A WalMart executive, who could easily have worked for Josef Goebbels in another time and another place, was quoted saying "The safety and security of our customers and associates is our top priority." Arbeit Macht Frei!

He also said, "Our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families at this difficult time." Well, then... let's move on; nothing out of the ordinary to see here. In fact, WalMart was encouraging customers to just keep on truckin' into the stores as rescue workers fought to save the man's life. The police finally forced the savage Republicans to shut it down. Again no WalMart executives were lynched, indicted, charged, arrested... or, as I said, anything. The top brass had no comment, being too busy working on a propaganda campaign to persuade workers how undemocratic and anti-working family labor unions are. Wall Street and WalMart are two sides of a coin that has proven ruinous and deadly for average Americans. Roach-- the multimillionaire economist-- foresees "rising unemployment, weakening incomes, falling home values, a declining stock market, record household debt and a horrific credit crunch." I guess he watches CNN too. He thinks this is unfortunate for us-- he's fine, thank-- but, basically, "a painful but necessary adjustment. Since the mid-1990s, vigorous growth in American consumption has consistently outstripped subpar gains in household income. This led to a steady decline in personal saving. As a share of disposable income, the personal saving rate fell from 5.7 percent in early 1995 to nearly zero from 2005 to 2007."

Inflation-adjusted personal consumption expenditures are on track for rare back-to-back quarterly declines in the second half of 2008 at a 3.5 percent average annual rate. There are only four other instances since 1950 when real consumer demand has fallen for two quarters in a row. This is the first occasion when declines in both quarters will have exceeded 3 percent. The current consumption plunge is without precedent in the modern era.

...In the days of frothy asset markets, American consumers had no compunction about squandering their savings and spending beyond their incomes. Appreciation of assets — equity portfolios and, especially, homes — was widely thought to be more than sufficient to make up the difference. But with most asset bubbles bursting, America’s 77 million baby boomers are suddenly facing a savings-short retirement.

Worse, millions of homeowners used their residences as collateral to take out home equity loans. According to Federal Reserve calculations, net equity extractions from United States homes rose from about 3 percent of disposable personal income in 2000 to nearly 9 percent in 2006. This newfound source of purchasing power was a key prop to the American consumption binge.

...In an era of open-ended house price appreciation and extremely cheap credit, few doubted the wisdom of borrowing against one’s home. But in today’s climate of falling home prices, frozen credit markets, mounting layoffs and weakening incomes, that approach has backfired. It should hardly be surprising that consumption has faltered so sharply.

Where, oh, where did Americans get these wildly irresponsible ideas? I'm sure Morgan Stanley-- a company I once sued for ripping me off, by the way-- never encouraged anyone to refinance and take equity out of their home for a Christmas splurge or a fancy vacation or a better car... or to put into a hedge fund. And because of all this borrowing against assets, "household debt hit a record 133 percent of disposable personal income by the end of 2007-- an enormous leap from average debt loads of 90 percent just a decade earlier." Yale and Harvard economist George W. Bush-- don't laugh; he has the degrees to prove it-- pretty much based 8 years of American government financial and economic policy on driving that number higher and higher-- even if he didn't have a clue he was doing that, a distinct possibility probability.

And needless to say, the parasite class has remedies for us... of course. "The United States needs a very different set of policies to cope with its post-bubble economy. It would be a serious mistake to enact tax cuts aimed at increasing already excessive consumption. Americans need to save. They don’t need another flat-screen TV made in China." And if you think that means just tax the rich-- or even confiscate their ill-gotten gains... well, then you're probably new to this blog. Roach sprinkles some very sensible mainstream ideas into his wealth preservation agenda.

The Obama administration needs to encourage the sort of saving that will put consumers on sounder financial footing and free up resources that could be directed at long overdue investments in transportation infrastructure, alternative energy, education, worker training and the like. This strategy would not only create jobs but would also cut America’s dependence on foreign saving and imports. That would help reduce the current account deficit and the heavy foreign borrowing such an imbalance entails.

We don’t need to reinvent the wheel to come up with effective saving policies. The money has to come out of Americans’ paychecks. This can be either incentive driven-- expanded 401(k) and I.R.A. programs-- or mandatory, like increased Social Security contributions. As long as the economy stays in recession, any tax increases associated with mandatory saving initiatives should be off the table. (When times improve, however, that may be worth reconsidering.)

Fiscal policy must also be aimed at providing income support for newly unemployed middle-class workers-- particularly expanded unemployment insurance and retraining programs. A critical distinction must be made between providing assistance for the innocent victims of recession and misplaced policies aimed at perpetuating an unsustainable consumption binge.

Crises are the ultimate in painful learning experiences. The United States cannot afford to squander this opportunity. Runaway consumption must now give way to a renewal of saving and investment. That’s the best hope for economic recovery and for America’s longer-term economic prosperity.

Especially for Morgan Stanley... and the entire parasite class. Speaking of which...

Under fire for his role in the near-collapse of Citigroup Inc., Robert Rubin said its problems were due to the buckling financial system, not its own mistakes, and that his role was peripheral to the bank's main operations even though he was one of its highest-paid officials.

"Nobody was prepared for this," Mr. Rubin said in an interview. He cited former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan as another example of someone whose reputation has been unfairly damaged by the crisis.

Not counting stock options, Rubin earned $115 million from Citi since 1999. Why do you think they gave him all that money?

Rove Still Knows How To Pull The Strings... On Democrats

Rove plants a little mindfuck into the a gussied up Republican Party propaganda sheet and progressives start freaking out. In his own snide, backhanded way, Rove seemed to semi-compliment the Obama economic team. He could cover Patti Smith's classic "Pissin' in a River," by changing "river" to "punchbowl." He starts his paean to Team Obama by praising people who basically disagree with his overall view on the economy straight down the line and it then clearly turns into a couch for his attack against a viable labor movement. He claims Obama, "did not reduce confusion on a Detroit bailout by saying he supported a 'sustainable auto industry.' America already has that in 69 foreign-owned auto plants that employ 92,700 Americans. The question is this: Does Mr. Obama want a sustainable U.S.-owned auto industry? If so, will he require changes in the Big Three's management, labor agreements and cost structure in return for aid? All he'd say Monday was that the industry needed to develop a plan." That's the GOP line, no matter how many chocolates and flowers they appear to throw at the feet of "first-rate thinker" Peter Orszag and "respected monetary expert," Christina Romer. And when it comes down to the only way the auto industry will actually be made viable-- through the Republican-hated universal health care-- Rove was his vicious, reactionary, partisan old self:

The only troubling personnel note was Melody Barnes as Domestic Policy Council director. Putting a former aide to Ted Kennedy in charge of health policy after tapping universal health-care advocate Tom Daschle to be Health and Human Services secretary sends a clear signal that Mr. Obama didn't mean it when his campaign ads said he wouldn't run to the "extremes" with government-run health care.

I wouldn't worry about what Karl Rove thinks, says or writes. He's utterly irrelevant and Obama knows it. Don't jump when he tries jerking your chain.

Will Chris Matthews Be The Democratic Candidate Against Snarlin' Arlen In PA?

Man, I used to hate Chris Matthews. To me, he was just a conservative Democrat kissing up to then-dominant Republican insiders by always sticking it to Democrats, particularly to the (unjustly) embattled President Clinton. I'd be too embarrassed to delineate exactly what I used to wish on Matthews for his pandering to the fascists. But, as we all know, MSNBC shifted to the left this year, at least in the evenings, and Matthews became part of a very partisan-- and very successful-- juggernaut that included Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. I have really enjoyed Matthews as a Democratic partisan, part of cable TV's answer to the Hannity-O'Reilly Republican Party spin machine at Fox. But now Matthews, whose contract with MSNBC expires in June, wants to run for the Senate seat currently held by 78 year old Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter. (Matthews is 62, youngish by Senate standards.)

If it were Rachel Maddow or Keith, Blue America would probably be starting a fundraising drive. But Matthews? What do you think? What should we do? Remember we're not a Democratic Party committee; we're dedicated to progressive values, not to strengthening a party apparatus that, more often than not, will betray the values and ideals we think need to be in the forefront of American politics.

On Wednesday a hackish Pennsylvania political journalist based in DC, Josh Drobnyk, writing for the cash-strapped/standards lowering L.A. Times jumped the gun and reported that Matthews was probably going to run. "The Philadelphia native has been toying with a run for months, and this week he sat down with state Democrats to discuss the prospect of taking on the five-term GOP senator."

"There are a lot of compelling reasons why serious Democrats would aspire to run in 2010," said Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman T.J. Rooney, who said Matthews had been in Pennsylvania Monday meeting with other Democratic leaders.

"You look at what has gone on in this state in the past six or seven years, and you think nothing is out of reach," Rooney said. Since 2002, Pennsylvania Democrats have grabbed the governor's mansion; unseated the Senate's No. 3 Republican, Rick Santorum; and picked up five U.S. House seats. But just as relevant to the party's optimism is what has happened outside the state. The Northeast lost nearly half its slate of Senate Republicans in the previous two elections, leaving Specter with just three GOP colleagues from the eight Northeastern states: Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.

Specter can probably expect a tough primary from the right, one he can probably fend off like he has in the past, but that will cost a great deal of money, energy and push him further to the right than he would otherwise position himself for a general election.The lunatic fringe head of the neo-fascist Club for Growth, ex-congressman Pat Toomey may run against Specter again. In 2004 he was within 2 points of beating him in the primary.

This morning pollster Nat Silver reported that Matthews is staffing up for a run after meeting with Obama operatives who are working on the Jim Martin Senate campaign in Georgia. Political junkies all know who Chris Matthews is, but not that many people have ever even heard of MSNBC, let alone Matthews, to give him some kind of advantage in an election. In fact, early polling-- basically a measure of familiarity-- shows that the far better known Specter would wipe him out. "Sixty percent of those polled said they didn't know enough about Matthews to form an opinion of him, while Specter has a 62 percent approval rating."

Specter is one of the 3 moderate Republicans who are occasionally willing to vote with Democrats on key substantive issues, the other two being Olympia Snows and Susan Collins. More often than not, however-- in fact far more often-- Specter has been a rubber stamp supporter of all the worst policies that have made up Bush's toxic and catastrophic agenda. Over the past 4 years Pennsylvania voters have punished elected officials who have supported the Bush agenda-- defeating Senator Rick Santorum and Congressmembers Curt Weldon, Melissa Hart, Mike Fitzpatrick, Don Sherwood, Phil English.

Democrats seem enthusiastic to get a celebrity candidate and Matthews is well-positioned to win a primary against one of the Democratic congressmembers (Sestak or Schwartz). His bother, Jim, is a County Commissioner in suburban Montgomery County and he has strong ties to Governor Rendell and to local Democratic machines.

He's always seemed like a stereotypical Irish-Catholic middle of the road Democrat. After being a Goldwater supporter, he swung hard against the Vietnam War and away from the GOP. He ran for Congress in 1974 but lost to the crooked machine Democratic incumbent, Joshua Eilberg (who was eventually convicted on corruption charges and sentenced to 5 years in prison-- although not before pulling strings and getting U.S. Attorney David Marston fired by Jimmy Carter, a disgraceful episode presaging the Bush Justice Department scandals.) Meanwhile, Matthews took a job as a speechwriter for Carter and then as a chief legislative assistant to House Speaker Tip O'Neill, his main claim to electability for many people. Of course the other, less attractive side, to that old fashioned meat and potatoes blue collar Democrat is the unacceptable reactionary social positions. Matthews has been a serial sexist and will have a real problem with women voters. Anyway... worth noting and watching. We're interested in hearing alternatives to Mathews and Specter.

Michell Wade Thinks He's Ratted Out Enough Republicrooks So As Not To Serve A Day In Jail

Goode lost his House seat. Is prison next?

It's kind of an unwritten law etched into stone that members of Congress don't get indicted within x number of days before an election. They make themselves some pretty helpful rules for themselves, don't they? Anyway, the election is over and "x number of days" is less than 2 years so... suddenly crooked Republican contractor/lobbyist, Mitchell Wade has something of great value: information on a number of congressmen who he bribed during the Tom Delay go-go Culture of Corruption years. Today's Washington Post says he's given the goods to the Feds of five congressmen other than the already convicted and imprisoned Duke Cunningham, currently awaiting a pardon from George Bush.

Wade, who is scheduled to be sentenced Dec. 15, faces a minimum of nine years in prison. Instead, based primarily on his cooperation with government investigators, he is seeking to have that sentence reduced to "a year of home detention, a fine of $250,000, five years probation and substantial community service," according to the sentencing memorandum filed on his behalf by his attorney, Howard M. Shapiro.

So everyone is running around asking who are the other 3 (besides Virgil Goode and Katherine Harris). Presumably another one is John Doolittle. That leaves two. Prime suspects are Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Tom Delay (R-TX), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). Seth Hettena, one of the first journalists to get his teeth into the Cunningham case and Wade's role in it, thinks Wade may have spilled the beans on bigger fish than a mere member of Congress... like the Director of National Intelligence, John McConnell.

Thanks

I just wanted to say Thank You to all the progressive men and women who sacrificed so much to take on the burden of running for public office this year. It amazes me that anyone sane does this. So this Sam and Dave video has nothing to do with anyone winning or losing, just doing something about what the rest of us mostly sit around and complain about. If you didn't win this time, please think about trying again.

I Wish I Could Be Thankful For $70/Hour Pay For Auto Workers

Later today I'm going over to my friends Russ' and Rebecca's house for a Thanksgiving dinner. I wish I could thank God that American auto workers and other workers are making $70 an hour. If it were true, there would be no financial crisis in this country. But it isn't true. It isn't even nearly true. I had lunch with a friend from CitiGroup yesterday. She's an enlightened person who enthusiastically voted for Obama-- and more enthusiastically cheered his appointments of the Wall Street contingent he just hired to fix the economy some sat they were complicit in breaking. Her prescription for the Detroit problem is the plan being pushed by the right: bankruptcy, jettisoning of pensions and, more than anything, abrogation of labor contracts. Like many Americans she has been persuaded that auto workers make $70/hour. I wish it were the case. They don't make half that, however.

I'm not sure what my friend makes per hour. She moves money and monetary instruments around on computers. Her income is certainly closer to $300/hour than it is to the $70/hour she begrudges the auto workers. Since the beginning of the Bush Regime, the rich have gotten richer-- much richer-- and the poor have gotten poorer-- and the middle class has gotten smaller-- and poorer. And this isn't like a coincidence; it's the result of careful planning, Regime policy and legislation. Despite all the corporate scandals that have been one of the more repulsive hallmarks of the Bush Regime-- and despite the much-ballyhooed but toothless "reforms" bandied about-- the asymmetry in the distribution of wealth and income disparity between those at the tippy-top of the economic pyramid (scheme) and the rest of us, has actually gotten much worse every single year single the Enron catastrophe. According to the Economist, in 2004 America's top 2000 CEOs averaged pay raises of around 30% bringing their salaries to nearly $6 million annually. And CEO bonuses at the top 100 companies rose gigantically and are well over a million dollars each. If there is any correlation between overpaid CEOs and stock values, it is a negative correlation, with stock prices actually declining as CEO pay packages rise into the stratosphere. Between 1990 and 2004 the average worker's pay remained basically flat at $27,000 while CEO pay went from $2.8 million to almost $12 million. And in the entire industrial world, the U.S. has the worst disparity between workers and their CEO bosses, far worse than Japan, Sweden, Germany, France, Italy, England, Canada... more in line with places like Saudi Arabia. The Bush Regime agenda of regressive tax policies are at the heart of this. A couple of years ago the NY Times took note that the income gap during the Bush years has widened significantly.

Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000-- receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.

The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.

We don't pay much heed to the twisted, distorted, corporate-oriented New Republic these days but last week even one of their senior editors, Jonathan Cohn, was moved to debunk the Republican Party talking point that so many have swallowed whole about $70/hour auto workers.

The actual average pay for auto workers by the Big 3 is $28/hour, just under $60,000 a year... before taxes and "hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers." The non-unionized Japanese auto makers operating their scab plants in backward, anti-labor states like Alabama, home of GOP reactionary and corporate shill, Richard "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Shelby, don't pay that much less-- approximately $20-26/hour, maybe $10,000 less per year. Cohn wants to get to the bottom of the $70 an hour myth. "It didn't come out of thin air," he writes and, for a change, Rush Limbaugh didn't just pull it out of Bill O'Reilly's ass.

Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages-- again, $28 per hour-- and you get the $70 figure. Voila.

Except... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that--probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees-- in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. One of the few people to grasp this was Portfolio.com's Felix Salmon. As he noted yesterday, the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just "not true."

Interestingly a fascinating new report on China's economy from the World Bank seems to attribute that country's slowdown to the shrinking share of GDP that has been going to workers (from 50% at the start of the decade to a drastically reduced 40% now). If workers have no money they can't be consumers-- not here and not there. Henry Ford may have been a right-wing jackass and, like many at the apex of the GOP Establishment at the time, an anti-Semitic Hitler cheerleader (if not conspirator), but he understood one thing about business that the Bush economic team never seems to have cared to grasp: if workers can't afford basic products, a consumer-driven economy dies... fast. Ford kept his model T's cheap claiming he wanted his factory workers to afford to buy them. A few nights ago I was reading how WalMart workers-- because they are paid so poorly, primarily due to the Republican Party's obsessive efforts on behalf of their WalMart paymasters to keep unions out of America's #1 employer. WalMart workers are a drain on taxpayers because they get no health care benefits and are as likely to wind up in a taxpayer supported emergency room as to be able to pay to see a doctor. WalMart and the GOP have one priority and one priority only for the first months of the Obama presidency: prevent the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), passage of which is a stepping stone on the road back to a healthy, middle class society that features a more equitable distribution of wealth, historically anathema to right-wing parties and their supporters.

As George Packer points out in this week's New Yorker, the authors of America's financial and economic collapse are not only not being punished, they are still busily gorging themselves on an inordinate share of the GDP. Should they be hunted down and shot like mad dogs in the streets (mostly Wall Street)? No, I believe in fair trials first.

Having brought the American and global economy to its knees through their reckless, shortsighted, downright stupid investments, and then looked to the government for a very expensive lifeline, the leaders of Citigroup, A.I.G., Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman, and other financial giants are maintaining a carefully nonchalant public posture. Andrew Cuomo, New York’s Attorney General, had to hold a threatening press conference on Wall Street in order to frighten A.I.G. into announcing that raises, bonuses, and lavish retreats will be suspended. But fear is not the same thing as shame. Morally speaking, it’s inferior.

Packer, more of a moderate than I, apparently doesn't go for my shooting solution. He writes he would like to see "these malefactors of great wealth apologize to the country. I would like to see them organize their own press conference in a lineup on Wall Street and, in the manner of disgraced Japanese officials, bow low to the pavement, express contrition, and beg their countrymen’s forgiveness. Such a scene would go some way toward cleansing the smell of the financial crisis." I think they would be happy-- very, very happy-- to do just that so long as they could keep their ill-gotten gains. But Packers says even the apology scenario is sheer fantasy. "[I]nstead, like the parents of two-year-olds, the next Congress should summon them to Washington and publicly punish these executives who, in Kohlberg’s terms, “see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.”

I like the punishment idea. It should start with confiscation of amassed fortunes.

No Obama Press Conference Today-- News Day Is All About Mumbai

I'm monitoring the real time live news feed at the CNN affiliate and there are still three sieges going on, one at the Oberoi (Trident) Hotel, one at the Taj Hotel, and one at Nariman House (where 10-15 Israelis are being held). There are hostages. Indian special forces are preparing to storm the three locations. The police say they picked up a cell phone from a terrorist inside the Taj and that its getting calls from "a neighboring country." Nepal? Myanmar?... Bhutan?

The weak and staggering Pakistani government is unlikely to have had anything to do with this travesty. Many in India will blame them anyway. It's more likely that the Pakistanis involved in this are at least as dedicated to see their own country collapse into anarchy as they are expecting to see India grant independence to Kashmir-- or break apart or whatever they want. The Pakistani Foreign Minister is in India and expressed shock and horror and pledged cooperation. The president and prime minister of Pakistan have condemned the attacks.

There is still too much confusion-- in a society where confusion is a hallmark-- to be able to even report definitively on what has happened, let alone why. Early analysis, though, seems to be headed towards "absolving" al-Qaeda. The e-mailers claiming credit, the "Deccan Mujahedeen," has never been heard of before.

Christine Fair, senior political scientist and a South Asia expert at the RAND Corporation, was careful to say that the identity of the terrorists could not yet be known. But she insisted the style of the attacks and the targets in Mumbai suggested the militants were likely to be Indian Muslims and not linked to Al Qaeda or Lashkar-e-Taiba, another violent South Asian terrorist group.

“There’s absolutely nothing Al Qaeda-like about it,” she said of the attack. “Did you see any suicide bombers? And there are no fingerprints of Lashkar. They don’t do hostage-taking and they don’t do grenades.” By contrast, Mr. Gohel in London said “the fingerprints point to an Islamic Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group.”

Mr. Hoffman he said the attacks, which he called “tactical, sophisticated and coordinated,” perhaps pointed to a broader organization behind the perpetrators.

The Indian security official said the attackers likely had ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a guerrilla group run by Pakistani intelligence in the conflict with India in the disputed territory of Kashmir. On Thursday, the group denied involved in the Mumbai attacks. India blamed Lashkar-e-Taiba for a suicide assault on its Parliament by gunmen in December, 2001 that led to a perilous military standoff with Pakistan.

...“There are a lot of very, very angry Muslims in India,” Ms. Fair said, “The economic disparities are startling and India has been very slow to publicly embrace its rising Muslim problem. You cannot put lipstick on this pig. This is a major domestic political challenge for India.”

“The public political face of India says, “Our Muslims have not been radicalized.’ But the Indian intelligence apparatus knows that’s not true. India’s Muslim communities are being sucked into the global landscape of Islamist jihad,” she said. “Indians will have a strong incentive to link this to Al Qaeda. ‘Al Qaeda’s in your toilet!’ But this is a domestic issue. This is not India’s 9/11.”

Even while the last 2-3 gunmen at the Taj and Oberoi hotels are battling it out with the Indian special forces and the Chabad community center at Nariman House is surrounded, many are trying to figure out the why. Deepak Chopra has far better analysis of what's happening than any of the CNN talking heads. Newsweek gives it a stab by asking Zareed Zakaria for his educated opinion:

I think one of the misconceptions we're seeing so far is the assumption that these attacks were aimed primarily at foreigners. Look at their targets. The two hotels they attacked-- the Taj and the Oberoi-- are old, iconic Indian hotels. It used to be true that these places were affordable only by Westerners. But this is no longer true, and it's one of the big changes over the last ten years in India. The five-star hotels today are filled with Indians. Businessmen, wedding receptions, parties…these are real meeting places now, and even those who cannot afford to stay there often pass through the lobby.

There's a Marriott, and a Hilton, a Four Seasons….The big American chains all have hotels there, and there are many more distinctly American targets. The Taj and the Oberoi are owned by Indians. My guess is that there will be a lot of Indians involved, and that this will generate a lot of domestic outrage.

...An Indian businessman who says he heard the attackers said he didn't understand the language that the young men were speaking. That means that it wasn't Hindi or Urdu… most Indians would recognize the major languages even if they couldn't speak one of them. But most Indians would be unfamiliar with what's spoken in parts of the Kashmir. That's a source of much of the terrorism. My guess is that ultimately this will turn out to be some outside jihadi groups who might also recruit among disaffected Muslims locally.

One of the untold stories of India is that the Muslim population has not shared in the boom the country has enjoyed over the last ten years. There is still a lot of institutional discrimination, and many remain persecuted. There's enough alienation out there that there are locals who can be drawn in to plots. That tends to be a pattern, from Madrid to Casablanca to Bali-- some hard-core jihadis who indoctrinate alienated locals they can seduce.

If you wanted to construct a conspiracy theory, it would go like this: elements of the Pakistani intelligence service that would like to get India more drawn into conflict in Kashmir might encourage this sort of thing. That would draw militants in the Pakistani tribal areas away from attacking the Pakistani state, and back to attacking the Indian state. But I've never tended to believe such theories. More plausible to me: this is a classic Frankenstein monster. All these groups have some degree of training and support from Pakistan. But this operation probably does not involve that directly. These groups are now autonomous, self-supporting, and have gone beyond those origins.

UPDATE: 3AM IN MUMBAI

It looks like all the terrorists at the Taj Hotel have been killed or captured and the fire is under control if not completely doused. The Oberoi appears to be in more under control, although commandos are going room to room looking for stranded guests. There are still explosions and gunfire at the Chabad center at Nariman House. Seven hostages have left but there are still hostages inside, including Rabbi Gabriel Holtzberg and his wife. Their 18 month old child was rescued by the cook who fled from the center. It looks like the death toll is up around 125 people so far, including 6 foreigners and 8 terrorists. Several hundred people have been injured, many critically. The death toll is expected to rise. There seems to be people upset about canceled cricket matches.

There also seems to be a Pakistani connection, though probably not a Pakistani government connection.

UPDATE: 4:30AM

The terrorists might as well stick their guns in their mouths and pull the triggers now. India agreed to have 40 Israeli security specialists fly in to "help."


UPDATE: Oops... Noon in Mumbai and Terrorists Still Shooting

Despite reports that the Taj and Oberoi were cleared of terrorists, there are still shots ringing out from inside the Taj, which is still on fire. There may still be hostages. Another terrorist was killed by special forces at the Oberoi, as were, apparently, some hostages. 40 foreigners have been rescued from the Oberoi. Indian special forces are assaulting the Chabad House. The Indians don't know how many terrorists are still at large there or anywhere else.

Of Ganders, Geese And Unspeakable Corruption In Congress

Did you read this editorial about the ongoing culture of corruption in DC in today's NY Times?

More questions are being raised about the doubtful ethics of Representative Wally Herger of California, who, after the retirement of GOP closet case Jim McCrery, is scheduled to take over as ranking minority member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. The latest sniff of scandal-- a breakfast meeting with a donor seeking tax protection-- provides more grist for the House ethics inquiry that’s supposed to be under way into Mr. Herger’s tangled affairs.

According to a report in the Times on Tuesday, Mr. Herger, a far right nut case on the lunatic fringe of his party, breakfasted last year with a major donor to his pet legacy: a school of marriage counseling at the Mormon Bible College in Yuba City that will bear Mr. Herger’s name. The donor, an oil-drilling executive, says he then escorted the NRA fanatic across the dining room of the Carlyle Hotel to meet his company’s waiting lobbyist-- a special pleader intent on protecting an off-shore tax loophole.

As events progressed, the loophole was protected, the donor pledged $1 million to the Herger school and the principals deny that there was any quid pro quo.

Are you ready to sign a petition to have Herger expelled from the House-- or at least investigated. Look at this fanatic, extremist right-wing voting record. The country would be so much better off without him. And this is hardly his first or only brush with ethical improprieties. I even had one with him myself when he came closer than comfortable to soliciting a bribe!

Oh, I didn't mean Herger. I actually meant the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee-- and so did the Times.

Mr. Rangel also says he has no recollection of the lobbyist breakfast encounter, while company officials say it involved only a few minutes and ended with Mr. Rangel restating his opposition to closing the loophole.

Nevermind that the congressman had earlier denounced the boondoggle for costing taxpayers tens of millions annually. He maintains he since concluded that a change would amount to an unfair retroactive tax increase. The Times’s David Kocieniewski reports that congressional colleagues were shocked by the reversal.

We hope that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is shocked into action. She should insist that the ethics investigation move forward-- and that Mr. Rangel relinquish his chairmanship during the inquiry. If Mr. Rangel continues to resist, the speaker should permanently reassign the gavel. In a deep economic crisis, the committee, and the country, cannot afford the distraction.

And Pete Stark, one of the most forward-thinking and progressive members of Congress-- and far, far more progressive than Rangel, I might add-- would take over running the committee. Rangel's ethics problems are getting in the way of the important work that Ways and Means is doing-- some of it by Rangel-- and it is giving the Republicans plenty of ammunition to paint the Democratic Party with the same brush that has been so effectively used on corrupt Republicans.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of the nonpartisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that Democratic House leaders were eroding their credibility by failing to address Mr. Rangel’s behavior.

“Representative Rangel’s ethics problems continue to mount, yet the ethics committee and the Democratic leadership remain silent,” she said. “Members of Congress often seem to believe that rules are for other people, and sadly, the ethics committee does nothing to correct that assumption,” she said. “It is long past time for Representative Rangel to be called to account for his repeated ethics violations.”

Rangel will be 80 in 2010 and he's been representing NY-15 since 1971. Despite his shameful record on corporate trade policies, he's given this country a great deal of valuable service. He should start thinking about retiring. Pelosi claims she wants to read the Ethics Committee report first and that it will be in her hands by January 3.

I Would Rate Mumbai, India As A Safe City To Visit Although It Wasn't Today

Gates of India on the right, Taj Mahal Hotel on the left

The first time I was in Mumbai, then called Bombay, was 1970 and I was so happy to be in India after driving for months and months and months across a far less hospitable western and central Asia. I was on my way to Goa in my trusty VW van. I only stayed in a hotel once in the whole 2 years I was on the Indian subcontinent and it was at the very end of the trip. In Bombay I slept in my van right at the Gates of India in the shadow of a hotel I came to stay at many times years later, the Taj, sight of some of the worst of today's violence. It usually gets rated as Mumbai's most luxurious and prestigious hotel. Last time I was there Roland was taking a shower when there was a power blackout. There was no electricity, of course, and something very odd happened. The water in the shower turned to sewage. [A similar thing, although it was thankfully a sink and not a shower and there was no contact, happened to me at New Orleans' best hotel, the Windsor Court, but they gave me a coupon for two free nights to assuage their embarrassment. The Taj knew no embarrassment and we were forced to walk up and down countless flights of stairs several times.]


Today Islamic terrorists dealt a severe blow to India's tourism industry by attacking the Taj, the Oberoi and several other top of the line tourist spots, killing an unspecified number of people-- looks like over 100-- and holding others hostage. The situation is still fluid as I write. Americans and Brits were especially sought out among the hostages and then shot.

The attacks appeared to be aimed at getting international attention as the terrorists took upto 40 British nationals and other foreigners hostage. The chairman of Hindustan Unilever Harish Manwani and CEO of the company Nitin Paranjpe were among the guests trapped at the Oberoi. All the internal board members of the multinational giant were reported to be holed up in the Oberoi hotel.

Two terrorists were reported holed up inside the Oberoi Hotel. Fresh firing has been reported at Oberoi and Army has entered the hotel to flush out the terrorists.

An unknown outfit, Deccan Mujahideen, has sent an email to news organizations claiming that it carried out the Mumbai attacks.

It sounds like chaos and it's still a breaking situation and may take days to figure out what exactly happened. It's 6AM in Mumbai now and there are still hostages and sieges and confusion spread out across a city with as many as 19 million people, gunfire... the Taj Hotel is on fire; 12 policemen are dead. No one knows what the "Decca Mujahideen" is and no one thinks that's who's really behind the attacks. Probably a Kashmiri liberation-oriented group.




UPDATE: NOT GOOD

It's just after 11am in Mumbai and it looks like there are more dead and less wounded than originally thought. There are still hostages in the Oberoi and the Taj and there are army troops in both hotels. Here's a live stream from CNN India for up to the minute news.

Inside The Sick And Demented Mind Of A Republican Grappling For Answers To Why His Party Was Routed-- But Unable To Face The Truth

Yesterday Fred Kaplan warned us about war criminal Don Rumsfeld's revisionist memoirs. They're not written yet put Kaplan is interpolating from the revisionist Op-Ed Rumsfeld did a few days ago for the NY Times. Rumsfeld hasn't been hauled before any war crimes tribunals yet and it's not likely he ever will be. Instead, he's busy with self-serving re-writes of history. His motivation is writ large.

Robert Hardaway is a law professor at the University of Denver and his motivations are less obvious-- but even more crackpot and delusional than Rummy's. Reading his poisonous screed in today's Rocky Mountain News I imagined what I would have done had I ever walked into a classroom and found as reactionary a jackass as Hardaway spouting off.

If you think that all the willful ignorance and bigotry from the far, far right comes from toothless rednecks running around in Klan robes in the hill country of Georgia and Tennessee and in Mormon cult centers, you haven't read anything from neo-fascist polemicist Robert Hardaway. And, yes, there are imbeciles are other law schools besides Regent and Liberty. Hardaway is like a walking, talking, barking personification of exactly why the American people have rejected the GOP. In Colorado, McCain was supported by 45% of voters while lunatic fringe Senate candidate Robert Schaffer got 42% and extremist nut incumbent Marilyn Musgrave was supported by 44% of her constituents. Let the professor speak for himself:

It should have been a slam-dunk for the Republicans in the 2008 presidential election. After all, the Democrats had inexplicably chosen as their nominee the least-qualified candidate in American history. Indeed, the only other candidate in American history to go directly from the Senate to the White House with neither gubernatorial nor military executive experience was Warren G. Harding, by consensus the worst president in American history. Moreover, Obama's voting record in the Senate has also been rated as the most hard-left voting record in American history.

To lose to such a candidate required more than simple ineptitude. It required an almost pathological determination to lose.

And yet, it may yet prove of value to the Republican Party if it can learn the following lessons from its defeat:

First, if you are going to go against an obviously unqualified candidate, choose a candidate with substantial executive experience. Only a handful of candidates in American history have ever succeeded to the office of the presidency without at least some gubernatorial executive experience. The Republicans had their chance to choose Mitt Romney, who not only had experience as a governor, but also experience as a business leader and organizer of the Olympics. Romney also "walked the walk" on universal health care in Massachusetts, unlike Democrats who have traditionally only talked the talk.

Second, don't reject a candidate because of his religion. Polls of Republicans expressed greater reservations over a Mormon candidate than an Islamic one.

Third, don't choose a man in his 70s to go up against a candidate of youth, vigor, and charisma, especially when your own candidate also has no executive experience.

Fourth, don't assume that independent voters will vote for the candidate who best upholds such traditional values as fiscal responsibility, strong national security, protection of our borders, and limited government. We should know by now that swing voters vote on the basis of personality and television persona. Thus, Obama's impending victory no more reflects the electorate's turn to the hard left, than Reagan's 49-state electoral victory in 1980 reflected a turn to the right.

Fifth, don't insult the intelligence of the voters with simplistic characterizations of the opponent's positions. Those only fuel counterattacks by a sympathetic media eager to show that 30-second ads do not completely set forth the complexities of the opponent's agenda. Rather, Republican ads need only have shown, without commentary, actual videos of Obama refusing to put his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem, his statement that he had visited "57 states" and the town hall video in which he talked about the need for asthma suffers to get "breathalyzers"-- followed by the simple question: "Ready to lead? You decide."

Sixth, ask voters whether the old American adage still holds true-- namely that one's character is evaluated in large part by the company he keeps. And leave it at that. No need to name names.

Seventh, don't let your party be outspent by such business tycoons as George Soros.

Eighth, and perhaps hardest of all, set aside social issues and concentrate on fiscal responsibility, national security, border protection, and fairness to the teeming millions of those seeking legal immigration. You don't have to give up your principles on social issues, but, absent a Reagan-quality communicator as your nominee, you're not going to win on them.

Ninth, decide whether public displays of support for such issues are worth losing an election.

And finally-- at number ten-- get some members of your party to audition for Saturday Night Live. There should be ample material (see No. 5 above).

So if you have a kid thinking of the University of Denver...

Someone Called Mukasey A Tyrant Before He Almost Plotzed

Barbara Ehrenreich paints a pretty glum picture of the American workplace in her latest book, a collection of short essays called This Land Is Your Their Land. She talks a lot about the ugliness of the pecking order. She kind of reminded me of the very first Patti Smith indie release, Piss Factory. Tonight, though, I was going through the BBC News and came across a related article, Bad Bosses May Damage Your Heart (which also led me to Work Stress Changes Your Body-- "a stressful job has a direct biological impact on the body, raising the risk of heart disease"-- and Unfair Bosses Raise Blood Pressure-- bosses that people perceive to be unfair not only make your working life a misery-- they can also pose a significant threat to your health." Yesterday's story was about a Swedish study that found a strong relationship between "poor leadership" and serious heart disease among the employees of the poor leaders.

I had just finished reading some right wing kook moaning and groaning because Washington state Judge Richard Sanders had stood up at the Federalist Society dinner last week and yelled "Tyrant! You are a tyrant!" at Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Mukasey was in the middle of defending the Bush Regime's disgraceful detainment practices at Guantánamo and its disregard for its obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Mukasey may have heard Judge Sanders' opinion and that may have caused him to collapse and faint a little while later. Right after his outburst Sanders walked out in protest and Mukasey was still feeding raw meat to the happy little fascistic Federalists.

Sanders did the right thing by speaking Truth to Power. He should be commended. Mukasey didn't die and he can oversee more inhuman detentions, more torture, and other crimes against humanity. I'm far more concerned by the victims of workplace brutality whose tyrannical bosses are shortening their lives in ways that anyone who has ever worked in an hierarchical work situation understands very well. Some say that kind of tyranny is part of human nature. Maybe it is. It's another excellent and compelling reason for strong labor unions.

After Spectacular Unbroken Series Of Failures, Freedom's Watch Goes The Way Of The Dodo

A few weeks ago the news broke that extreme right lunatic/billionaire/gambling impresario "Cockroach" Sheldon Adelson was on his way to bankruptcy. One of the most destructive and negative forces in American politics, Adelson is probably the single biggest paymaster to extreme right and neo-fascist organizations in America. One of the most vicious projects he funded, the extremist Freedom's Watch GOP front group, folded it's tents yesterday and slinked off into the sewers.

Freedom's Watch, bankrolled by Adelson and run (ineptly) by Ari Fleischer lost on virtually every big bet it made in the last cycle, despite spending as much as a quarter billion dollars. Their most vicious attacks were launched against Jeanne Shaheen and Carol Shea-Porter in New Hampshire, Mark Udall in Colorado, Jeff Merkley in Oregon, Dina Titus in Nevada, Martin Heinrich and Tom Udall in New Mexico, all of whom won their races, but Freedom's Watch was involved with dozens of congressional races, pretty much losing all of them. They won't be missed-- by anyone, except, I guess, the right wing operatives, who were on Adelson's gravy train.

GOP Triumphant As Democrats Disintegrate Into Conflict-- In the Fevered Dreams Of Republican Propagandists

Bye-bye hacks and cronies, hello people who actually know what they’re doing.
-Paul Krugman, NY Times

I've been waiting all week to use that one-liner which so succinctly sums up the end of the Bush Regime and the dawning of a new Obama era. Propaganda agents for proto-Soviets and proto-fascists may see it differently-- differently because they really do hate everything America stands for. Everyone has a stake in Obama's team succeeding except for the agents of reaction and they intend to fight it tooth and claw. Their (well) paid political hacks, Jon Kyl, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Jim Bunning, Eric Cantor, even fake moderate Susan Collins have already announced their intentions to do all they can to sabotage and obstruct the new president's agenda. Saxby Chambliss is actually running for re-election based on it! And he's being supported with massive infusions of cash from extreme right wing funders and from the savage-- if ludicrous-- partisans from the fringes: Palin, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee...

The worst of the shady, anti-American, neo-nazi front groups, the National Republican Trust PAC spent more money attacking Jim Martin (and Obama) last week than every other organization involved in the Georgia Senate race combined.

Meanwhile an article by Martin Kady in today's Politico, hailed as poppycock by Democrats and as a long lost missing book from the Buy Bull by Republicans, claims that the real action in Washington is not watching the disintegration of the Republican Party but being aghast at a supposed civil war inside the Democratic Party. Oh, it's so dire:

Unless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can whip their caucuses into unity, numerous fault lines will be revealed: Southern Democrats vs. Northern liberals on labor law; California greens vs. Rust Belt Democrats on global warming; socialized medicine adherents vs. go-slow health care reformers; anti-war liberals vs. cautious centrists on national security. And don’t forget the anti-bailout crowd vs. the powerful Michigan Democrats in both chambers when it comes to money for Detroit.

But, yes there are more than a few nominal Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- your Bayhs and Landrieux and Barrows and Marshalls and such scum. But enough to team up with the GOP and derail Obama's program? I don't think so. Cady's full of shit:

Opponents call it “card check” and say it oversimplifies the unionizing process and takes away the secret ballot. Advocates call it the Employee Free Choice Act and say it will open up new doors for labor protections. Southern Democrats, meanwhile, might call it a trap.

This legislation-- which would make it much easier for shops to unionize-- is the big payback for Big Labor. [Not to mention a step in the right direction towards human rights and solving the country's economic problems.] The measure already passed the House this year and should easily pass the House next year. But the 100-member Senate needs 60 votes to break a filibuster, and the pro-business and pro-labor factions on both sides believe the Senate is stuck at 59.

The legislation is a tough call for new Southern Democratic senators such as Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Warner of Virginia, along with moderate Southerners such as Blanche L. Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, all of whom hail from less union-friendly Southern states.

The critical question is whether Reid and labor advocates can convince these moderates to back the cloture motion to stop a filibuster, then let them vote against the final bill, which requires only a simple majority to pass.

“We don’t know if we have 60 yet. We’re at 59 [for cloture] right now,” said Josh Goldstein, a spokesman for American Rights at Work, a pro-labor group. “The issue has become front and center, and the worse the economy gets, the more support we get. [Business groups are] trying to make this a volatile issue for senators.”

This is an ultimately extremely deceptive analysis by someone who is either really ignorant or just trying to stir up trouble. As we saw yesterday, only two Democrats voted no (arch-reactionaries Dan Boren of Oklahoma and Gene Taylor of Mississippi), while 13 Republicans crossed the aisle to vote in favor of it with 228 Democrats. Two; that's worth a two page story in Politico-- especially as they are two of the least consequential and most marginalized members of Congress. Meanwhile on the Senate side, June 26, 2007, when the GOP filibustered the Employee Free Choice Act every single Democrat opposed them-- yes, even Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu. Why would Kady insinuate that Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln would vote against it? Maybe his editors should ask him. His whole story sounds like it was spun by Karl Rove. Meanwhile, if any Republicans want to put their money where their dreams are, I'll cover bets that Kay Hagan and Mark Warner vote for EFCA without too much arm-twisting.

EU Suspends Aid For Bulgaria-- Corruption, Graft, Conflict Of Interest... Hmmmmm

How different are Paulson and Bernanke from Bulgarians?

As Obama and the lame duck Bush Regime make a show of working together to stave off complete economic paralysis and financial collapse, is anyone watching to see where the billions and billions of dollars-- taxpayer dollars-- are winding up? I don't know if you noticed but the last time the Bush criminals got their hands on this kind of money, immense amounts "went missing." I'd feel a lot better if newly elected Florida congressman, Alan Grayson, were sworn in and hunting the profiteers. He's one of the people in government we can trust to not have sticky fingers-- or friends with sticky fingers-- or be bamboozled by banksters and slimy lobbyists with sticky fingers.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic a not unrelated kind of corruption scandal is unfolding. The EU just stripped nearly $300 million in rescue aid from Bulgaria, the poorest of all the EU countries. It's also the most corrupt, or at least the most blatantly corrupt. (Corruption usually follows the big money and I'm guessing that if you strip away the niceties you'd find the most corruption in the richer countries like England, Germany, France and Italy where they're more practised at covering it up.) Anyway, the stunning announcement that Bulgaria isn't getting the much-needed dough would be like if Bush were to say, that he'd handing out all this cash to stave off disaster but because one of our own most backward and corrupt states-- say Louisiana, which is very similar to Bulgaria when it comes to corruption-- isn't getting any.

Like Louisiana, the Bulgarian government hasn't done anything to fight the systemic corruption that pervades their society. And, like Louisiana, it is widely suspected that that is because the entire government, from top to bottom, is in on the scam. Another $400 million is also is suspended until Bulgaria can show that it is addressing the problems. Does this sound like Louisiana or what? (Or maybe Nevada?)

The fate of a further 340 million euro, which have been contracted and payment of which has been frozen at the request of the European Commission, remains unclear.

The EC suspended the accreditation of the two agencies in July, saying that Bulgaria's administrative capacity was weak and that there were strong suspicions of fraud and conflict of interest in awarding the funds. Furthermore, the EC said at the time, there appeared to be no political will to eradicate fraud, while the lack of tangible results in the fight against corruption was causing serious concerns.

Bulgaria's Cabinet answered with a bloated action plan that comprised more than 350 pages of measures it would undertake to address the issues highlighted by the EC, which now appears to have fallen of the Commission's expectations.

AP is reporting that "the action against an EU member state is without precedent in EU history." The money was meant to aid farmers and go into infrastructure projects which has been a source of fraud, conflict of interests and graft. Bulgaria responded last month by setting up a special investigation unit to look into "mismanagement of E.U. money" and Sofia also passed the country's first conflict-of-interest law. No one took these moves any more seriously than the Bush Regime's investigations into the mismanagement and theft of billions of dollars in Iraq War funds.

So who's watching the Citi Banksters again? Let's hope it isn't Paulson or we're all likely to end up living like Bulgarians.

The Obama Economic Team: Yes They Can?

Watching President-elect Obama put together his economic team has left me a little nervous. Some, like Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin, are Clinton retreads who have always been more concerned with corporate interests than with working families. Geithner I'm not as sure about but judging by the exuberant reaction from Wall Street, he probably more one of them than one of the rest of us. I might be wrong; I don't know. That's why I'm nervous-- despite reassurances from even someone as inherently pessimistic as Nouriel Roubini. On the other hand, I do know Rahm Emanuel, another Clinton retread that Obama scooped up, and I know what a disaster that's going to be.

E.J. Dionne, in today's Washington Post writes that Obama's choices are sending a clear signal: "He wants his actions to be big and bold. He sees economic recovery as intimately linked with economic and social reform. And he is bringing in a gifted brain trust to get the job done." That sounds good but I'm not certain it's not 80% Dionne's wishful thinking and 20%... everyone else's prayers. Still, Dionne makes a good case:

Obama is also using the crisis to make the case for larger structural reforms in health care, energy and education-- "to lay the groundwork for long-term, sustained economic growth," as he put it. Obama clearly views the economic downturn not as an impediment to the broadly progressive program he outlined during the campaign but as an opportunity for a round of unprecedented social legislation.

"He feels very strongly that this is not just a short-term fix but a long-term retooling of the American economy," said one of Obama's closest advisers. "Obama has a holistic view of the economy. Health care is going to be part of it," the lieutenant told me, and so will green energy investments, education reform and a new approach to regulating financial markets.

Obama further underscored his decision to tether social and economic policy by linking his announcement of Melody Barnes as the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council to the unveiling of his economic team.

OK, I'm breathing a little easier. And a friend of mine who works on Capitol Hill made me actually feel good when Peter Orszag was named to head the Office of Management and Budget, who Ezra Klein had already assured us means Obama is serious about not putting off health care reform.

Orszag will be coming from the Congressional Budget Office, OMB's legislative cousin. There, he's shown an almost single-minded focus on health care reform. He's added dozens of health care analysts to the staff, reconstructed the health policy division's management structure, and is readying to release two major books on health policy options and CBO's health care scoring models that will be extremely central in how Congress looks at building a health care bill. Amidst all that, he's toured the country giving a slide show about the problems of the health care system, the overwhelming danger it poses to our fiscal condition, the incredible inefficiencies that beset the delivery, and the research that suggests reform could not only save money but also improve care. He's also acted as a powerful and credible counterweight to those who counsel incrementalism, or delay, on health reform. Indeed, when it became common to suggest that the bank bailout should displace ambitious agenda items like health care reform, Orszag took to his blog-- yes, he has a blog, did I mention that?-- to write:

Many ob-servers have noted that addres-sing the probl-ems in finan-cial markets and the risks to the economy may displace health care reform on the policy agenda... Although it may not seem immediately relevant given our current difficulties, it will be crucial to address the nation’s looming fiscal gap-- which is driven primarily by rising health care costs — as the economy eventually recovers from this current downturn. Indeed, our ability to address our current economic difficulties (through both financial market interventions and potential additional fiscal stimulus) would be severely impaired if investors were not so willing to invest substantial sums in Treasury securities without charging much higher interest rates. That willingness reflects the (currently accurate) view among investors that Treasury securities are extremely safe investments.

If we fail to put the nation on a sounder fiscal course over the next few decades, though, we will ultimately reach a point where investors would lose confidence and no longer be as willing to purchase Treasury debt at anything but exorbitant interest rates. If that were to occur, we would lack the kind of maneuvering room that we currently enjoy to address problems in the financial markets and the economy. So if you think the current economic crisis is serious, and it is, imagine what it would be like if we didn’t have the ability to undertake aggressive and innovative policy interventions because creditors were effectively unwilling to lend substantial additional sums to the Federal government…

That left me chanting "Yes, we can, Yes, we can" and thinking that Emanuel might not be as terrible a choice-- or at least one the nation will survive-- as I thought. And that's when my old pal-- and former Emanuel defender-- chimed in that he used to make a point of watching every hearing Orszag testified at. "He was like a human calculator in a way, kind of a ruthless competence, but the calculations were always around how things actually affected working people and those who needed help, had a way of shooting down Republican jibberish that left them slinking off."

OK, OK... I'm back off the limb and remembering how smart Obama is and that I had resolved to trust him. Whew. Cause we're not just talkin' about being a little-- or even a lot-- better than Bush or McCain now.

Susan Collins Already Making Pre-emptive Excuses For Backing GOP Policy of Obstructionism

The stupider and more clonish of Maine's two Republican senators, the tragically re-elected Susan Collins, often shows up on lists of Republicans that Democrats hope-- for whatever reason-- they can persuade to act in the best interests of the country instead of following a dead-end partisan path into crazy GOP extremism. It makes no sense to include Collins on a list with Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter-- or even George Voinovich and Lisa Murkowski. And it's not just because Collins is an intellectual dullard (which she certainly is). Her natural inclination is to be as partisan and conservative as she can get away with in Maine. Add to that the fact that she has six years before having to face the public again and expect at least two or three years of pure Republican obstructionism.

Oregonian voters were too smart to fall for it again from Gordon Smith, who always used the same tactics-- right-wing for 4 years/moderatish for the 2 before the election-- and he lost his re-election bid, even though he spent more than double what his Democratic opponent, Jeff Merkley spent. But Mainers decided to give Collins another chance to screw them over. And she will.

Last week she announced that she's angry at Democrats for campaigning against her and plans to get revenge by helping block Obama's agenda for change. Mainers went with Obama over McCain 58-41%-- and it wasn't just because Lewiston has a lot of Somali refugees.

She confessed that she had “trouble forgiving colleagues” who traveled to Maine and told voters she was “a Bush clone and called into question her ethics,” said a senator who attended the meeting.

Collins’s lingering resentment could emerge as a snag for Democratic leaders who expect her to side with them on many important votes.

Unless Democrats win a recount in Minnesota and a runoff in Georgia, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will need at least two Republicans to side with his conference on procedural votes next year to overcome GOP filibusters... Yet her willingness to cross the aisle from time to time didn’t stop Democrats from lobbing attacks during her recent campaign for reelection. Collins received her hardest shots from Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio).

During a campaign event in Portland, Maine, earlier this year, Lautenberg accused Collins of turning a blind eye to war profiteering in Iraq while she served as chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

“I was eager to get to the bottom [of dealings with] Halliburton, but the chair of the committee refused to look into it,” Lautenberg told reporters in February, according to PolitickerME.com.

Lautenberg also said that Collins blocked an effort to subpoena Vice President Dick Cheney about salary and stock options he had received from Halliburton.

Brown blasted Collins for voting regularly with President Bush and then falsely portraying herself as a party maverick to voters at home.

“Susan Collins tries to sell herself as a moderate, but when I look at her record, I don’t see it,” Brown declared during a trip to Bangor in September.

Brown said Collins supported the policies of President Bush 81 percent of the time and “when she comes back to Bangor she brags about the other 19 percent of the time.”

Any Democrats who are looking to Collins for help in overcoming the Republican Party's plans to filibuster everything Obama tries to do must be smoking something a lot stronger than ordinary folks get.

Big Changes In The Senate As The Parties Gear Up For Another GOP Drubbing In 2010

Yesterday we remarked how a Debbie Wasserman Schultz led cabal of conservative Democrats is already bad mouthing the prospects of the DCCC working to win more seats from Republicans in 2010. They say they want to put all their energy into the incumbent protection racket and not worry about vulnerable Republicans. Fortunately on the Senate side, there is tremendous excitement to continue retiring reactionary Republicans in order to make America a safer and more secure place. Wasserman Schultz just wants to make Florida safer and more secure for her GOP allies like Ros-Lehtinen and the notorious Diaz-Balart brothers who she protected in 2008 and plans to help to easy re-elections in 2010.

Before we get into the Senate prospects, there was a huge announcement by the DSCC today. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the chairman for the past two cycles-- who can claim a lot of credit for helping elect quite a few Democrats ("more" if not the "better" variety)-- announced he's leaving that position. New Jersey's Robert Menendez will be taking over. Schumer was given a new #3 leadership position in the Senate, something Reid said would be impossible when it was Hillary Clinton looking for a reason to stay in the Senate.

Schumer, like his grasping and equally unscrupulous House counterpart, Rahm Emanuel, claims a lot more credit for Democratic successes than he deserves-- although he deserves a lot more than Emanuel. He made some really big mistakes-- like backing DLC hack John Morrison over populist Jon Tester in the Montana primary in 2006. Schumer, however, got behind Tester-- which is more than the pouty, petulant and pigheaded Emanuel did when grassroots candidates beat his corporate shills-- and helped him win his seat. Unfortunately, Schumer's tendency to always go for the more conservative candidate didn't always work out as well. By backing the worst and most reactionary faux Democrat from deep in the bowels of the Republican wing of Kentucky's Democratic Party, Schumer may have been pennywise and pound foolish. He saved money on the race by backing the corrupt, wealthy Lunsford-- but lost an opportunity to get rid of the hated Mitch McConnell by pitting against him a "Democrat" that many real Democrats were unable to bring themselves to vote for. Although McCain beat Obama in Kentucky 51-49%, 1,341,667 people voted for Obama. Only 846,221 of them bothered pulling the lever for the odious Lunsford (47%).

Still, most of the complaints about Schumer are from Republicans, not Democrats. They hate him and they hate the fact that since he took over the DSCC at least 13 (and as many as 15) seats have gone from red to blue. It doesn't matter to the Republican Insider establishment that many of the Democrats are conservative; they're still not Republicans, even when they vote like them.

To Republicans, Mr. Schumer has become a symbol of raw and merciless politicking and his name is often invoked when the Republicans complain of unsavory campaign tactics such as a series of television advertisements this year attacking Republican incumbents for supporting the $700 billion bailout for the financial system.

So what is Schumer leaving Menendez? Even a critic like myself, has to admit that the Lizard Man is leaving the DSCC in incredibly good shape and that Menendez has a crack team, a great balance sheet and should have every expectation of continuing to rid the country of the enemy within. Congress Daily did a first rate report yesterday on how the lay of the land is shaping up for 2010. Short version: despite what Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the nay sayers at the DCCC are preaching, it looks like another catastrophic cycle for the GOP.

It starts off with the Republicans again having to defend more seats than the Democrats, always bad news, especially when some of those seats are outside of the regions the GOP is strong in, the Old Confederacy and the backward Mormon West. Worse yet is that the NRSC will be headed by one of the least competent members of their caucus, Texas Neanderthal John Cornyn, whose good at taking graft from Big Oil and other corporate interests but not good at anything else. Listen to him give a full throated display of typical Cornynite cluelessness: "On a broad level, Republicans need to do a better job of communicating with the American people and talking about why a Republican majority would positively affect them on the issues that matter most to their families and their pocketbooks. We need to recapture the mantle of reform and offer a positive governing vision. To do that, we need to have the right resources in place, which is why fundraising and candidate recruitment are two of my top priorities in the immediate future... Senate Republicans face another uphill fight in 2010. It's going to take a lot of hard work, determination and cooperation among all Senate Republicans."

If Democrats are able to recruit top notch candidates they should be able to take out Judd Gregg (NH), Mel Martinez (FL), Jim Bunning (KY), and Arlen Specter (PA) and, if Obama and the Democrats do a good job cleaning up after Bush, Democrats will have a good shot at unseating pervert David "Diapers" Vitter (LA), George Voinovich (OH), Chuck Grassley (IA), Richard Burr (NC), Kit Bond (MO) and maybe even McCain (AZ). If Jim DeMint (SC) insists on personifying the face of extremist obstructionism there is even a chance that a decent Democrat-- if such a thing can be found for a Senate race there-- could defeat the single most right-wing member of the Senate.

Congress Daily's state by state preview

ALABAMA

If anyone in the Republican class of 2010 is considered safe, it is veteran Sen. Richard Shelby, now in his fourth term. Known for bringing money to his state as a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, Shelby seems invulnerable, but there are cracks in the solidly Republican state. While Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain carried the state, 61 percent to 39 percent, Democrats did pick up a GOP-held House seat this month.

Shelby, 74, has been in office since winning a state Senate seat in 1970. He moved to the House in 1978 and was elected to the Senate in 1986-- all as a conservative Democrat. He crossed the aisle in 1994 and his two wins since have been by overwhelming margins, making him a formidable opponent to any Democratic foe. No Democratic challengers have emerged; one Democrat who might make the race competitive, Rep. Artur Davis, is more likely to run for governor. One possible deterrent to other Democrats: Shelby has amassed a $13 million bankroll, according to public records. Shelby's seniority might also work in his favor. In addition to his Appropriations seat, Shelby is ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee-- a perch he has used to become an outspoken opponent of the economic bailout.

ALASKA

Sen. Lisa Murkowski might be on many endangered-incumbent lists, but she will enter the 2010 campaign with a newly elevated profile. The defeat of GOP Sen. Ted Stevens will make Murkowski the state's senior senator and her likely rise to ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will give her a powerful seat to represent Alaska's interests. Unlike most vulnerable incumbents, Murkowski's biggest challenge might come in the GOP primary, where a challenge by Gov. Sarah Palin would make the contest the marquee race of the cycle and could either give Palin a launching pad for a 2012 presidential bid or end her political climb. Palin defeated former Sen. Frank Murkowski, the current senator's father, in a three-way 2006 primary when he ran for a second term as governor.

Other possible primary challengers for Murkowski include Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell-- who narrowly lost a primary bid to unseat GOP Rep. Don Young this year-- and state Rep. Gabrielle Ledoux. The general election might present other challenges for Murkowski, who came under intense criticism when her father was elected governor and appointed her to replace him. In a staunch GOP state, she was elected in 2004 with 49 percent of the vote against former Democratic Gov. Tony Knowles.

ARIZONA

What once might have been a Grand Canyon State free-for-all or a clash of the titans has likely devolved into that most predictable of contests, in which a veteran senator cruises to re-election. As Election Day's presidential returns rolled in with the bad news for Sen. John McCain, retirement rumors swirled around him. But McCain dispelled most of them last week when he set up a PAC as the first step toward running for a fifth term. If McCain follows through and runs, it is unlikely Republican Reps. John Shadegg or Jeff Flake, both of whom have mulled running for the Senate, would challenge the state's senior senator.

On the Democratic side, the party lost a formidable challenger when Gov. Janet Napolitano was tapped by President-elect Obama to be Homeland Security secretary. Among the state's Democratic House members, Reps. Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords are moderates who racked up impressive wins in 2006 and 2008 in swing districts. Giffords is a fundraising juggernaut who raised more than $3 million for the 2008 cycle. She is also 38 years old and can afford to wait and pick her target if she wants to run in the future.

FLORIDA

Sen. Mel Martinez is looking vulnerable in pre-election polls, even though Democrats don't have a clear-cut candidate lined up to challenge him. Although polls taken two years before an election are largely meaningless, an incumbent who polls at 36 percent -- as Martinez did in a recent Quinnipiac University survey pitting him against a generic Democrat -- is usually facing a long slog. Another factor that might work against Martinez is that President-elect Obama carried the state, 51 percent to 49 percent.

But Martinez can counter with a remarkable personal story that resonates with many Floridians. Martinez came to the United States in 1962 as a non-English-speaking 15-year-old Cuban émigré who lived in a refugee camp and with foster families until his family arrived four years later. After college and law school, Martinez was the state campaign chairman for President Bush and served as HUD secretary until narrowly winning the Senate seat in 2004, 49 percent to 48 percent over former state Education Secretary Betty Castor. Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Kendrick Meek and Allen Boyd are often mentioned as possible Democratic challengers.

GEORGIA

As a conservative Republican in a red state who won with 58 percent in 2004, Sen. Johnny Isakson is an unlikely target for Democrats. But if the Dec. 2 runoff involving GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Jim Martin is an indication, Isakson could be in for an unexpectedly tough ride in two years.

Isakson remains one of the most conservative members in the Senate, with National Journal ranking him seventh in this category in 2007. While his conservative credos are similar to those of Chambliss-- ranked 15th by the magazine-- Isakson is a less caustic campaigner. Democrats will try to paint Isakson as "out of touch" with Georgians, said Martin Matheny, a spokesman for the state Democratic Party. No Democrats have emerged as serious challengers, although if Martin loses the runoff by a narrow margin he might use his better-than-expected performance and improved name recognition to try again.

IDAHO

Unseating Sen. Mike Crapo would be a tough task, regardless of the political environment in 2010. Crapo has $1.8 million in campaign cash, was unopposed in 2004, and got 70 percent in 1998 in his first Senate race. In addition, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain just carried the state with 61 percent. "It will be a tough race," said Julie Fanselow, a spokeswoman for the Idaho Democratic Party, although she said she expected the party would field a challenger this time. State Democratic Party Executive Director Jim Hansen said that while no candidates have come forward, the field typically does not take shape until after the state legislative session wraps up in the spring. He said the party is optimistic because Democratic Rep.-elect Walt Minnick upset Republican Rep. Bill Sali and "overcame the stereotypes" Western Democrats get saddled with.

Hansen said the "50-state strategy" employed by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean helped identify Democratic voters and candidates for down-ballot elections, citing an increase of 53,000 votes for President-elect Obama over 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. But the Idaho Democratic Party does not have a deep bench of state-level office holders and the state is still reliably Republican. The GOP has large majorities in the state House and Senate and controls the executive branch.

IOWA

The success of Iowa Democrats in the last two election cycles has fueled talk that the party can finally take a serious run at Sen. Charles Grassley, who will be running for a sixth term in 2010. Democrats took over both houses of the state Legislature and picked up two House seats in 2006, and President-elect Obama won the state with 54 percent of the vote this year after it narrowly went for President Bush in 2004. Democrats have held the governor's mansion since 1999, and Gov. Chet Culver will be at the top of the ticket in 2010.

A source at the Iowa Democratic Party said she would be "very surprised if there's not a high-profile challenger" to Grassley but acknowledged challenging the popular Grassley would be "daunting" to many candidates because of his high approval ratings. "Some folks do feel he's unbeatable," she said. Grassley has never faced a serious challenge for his seat, and in 2004 was re-elected with 70 percent, his highest total. Potential challengers include former two-term Gov. Tom Vilsack, Lt. Gov. Sally Pederson and Rep. Bruce Braley. The Democratic source said she expects the field to take shape next year, and said some might be waiting on Vilsack, who has been mentioned as a possible Agriculture secretary for Obama. [That rumor ended yesterday.]

KANSAS

The pending retirement of Sen. Sam Brownback raises the prospect of a bruising Republican primary fight between Reps. Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt. Moran has already established a committee to raise money for a Senate bid, and Tiahrt has acknowledged his interest in the seat; a spokesman called a Tiahrt candidacy "definitely a possibility." Charlotte Esau, executive director of the conservative Kansas Republican Assembly, said Moran is liked by moderates, even though he has a conservative voting record. "Tiahrt is no more conservative than Moran but for some reason isn't perceived quite the same by the moderates and is liked by conservatives," she said. Moran has a 2-1 financial advantage at this point, with $2.4 million on hand to Tiahrt's $1.2 million, according to FEC filings. Esau said the primary could hinge on how well each turns out the vote in their districts and how they fare in Kansas City's suburbs.

The Kansas GOP has had trouble uniting its conservative and moderate factions, often leading moderates to side with Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a possible Senate candidate. But Sebelius is considered a Cabinet prospect in the Obama administration, which would take her out of a Senate race. Former Democratic Rep. Jim Slattery, who lost to GOP Sen. Pat Roberts this month, has taken himself out of the running. It has been more than 75 years since Kansas last elected a Democrat to the Senate.

KENTUCKY

Sen. Jim Bunning wasted little time after the election letting fellow Republicans know he expects their help putting together a large campaign war chest for 2010. Just four days after the 2008 election, Bunning-- who will turn 79 just prior to Election Day 2010-- told the State Central Committee he plans to soon start raising at least $10 million. His closest aides have been saying he will run with the slogan, "Do It Again in 2010." But even some of his staunchest backers say they expect Bunning to retire, given his age and the rigors of campaigning. [There have been persistent rumors that Bunning actually died 2 years ago and his senatorial duties have been handled by his staff.]

If Bunning runs, he might be reinvigorated if his long-held stance that the Federal Reserve was moving the country in the wrong direction is being shown to be prophetic, given the dismal economy. If Bunning retires, Secretary of State Trey Grayson said he is likely to run. Grayson, in his second term, is from northern Kentucky's Cincinnati suburbs-- a population center and GOP stronghold. So far, GOP Reps. Harold Rogers, Geoff Davis and Ed Whitfield have made little noise about running. Davis has an eye on a coveted seat on the House Ways and Means Committee being vacated by retiring GOP Rep. Ron Lewis. Democratic Rep. Ben Chandler might run if Bunning retires. Other Democratic prospects include Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo, whom Bunning barely beat in 2004; state Attorney General Jack Conway; state Auditor Crit Luallen and businessman Bruce Lunsford, who narrowly lost this year to Senate Minority Leader McConnell.

LOUISIANA

Sen. David Vitter is expected to face a primary challenge before getting to the general election. Vitter, whose 51 percent in 2004 made him the first GOP senator in the state in 121 years, is viewed as being particularly vulnerable following revelations in 2007 that his phone number turned up in the records of a woman convicted of running a prostitution service in Washington. The allegations undercut his popularity with evangelicals who were integral to his election.

GOP sources in the state and in Washington said Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne is among the Republicans who might run in the primary. Others include state House Speaker Jim Tucker and state Sen. Mike Michot; they cannot seek re-election because of term limits. "I wouldn't put it past some of the ambitious evangelicals [to mount a challenge,]" said one senior Hill Republican with ties to the state. Former Democratic Rep. Chris John, who Vitter bested in 2004, is considered a possible general election challenger, as is Democratic Rep. Charlie Melancon. Others mentioned as potential Democratic candidates are Rep. Don Cazayoux, who lost earlier this month, and J.M. Bernhard Jr., chief executive of the Shaw Group, a Baton Rouge-based engineering and construction firm.

MISSOURI

Democrats looking for a challenger to Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond in two years point to a statistic: 1.7 million votes, which is how many Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan got while being re-elected earlier this month. That was more even than Gov.-elect Jay Nixon and prompted speculation she might take on Bond.

She is a member of one of the more prominent Democratic families in the state, as the daughter of the late Gov. Mel Carnahan and former Sen. Jean Carnahan, the sister of Rep. Russ Carnahan and the granddaughter of the late Rep. A.S.J. Carnahan. Since she will begin a new four-year term in January, Carnahan can take a free shot at Bond without losing her office. "We're all assuming it's going to be Robin Carnahan," said a state Republican Party spokeswoman. If she decides not to run, the field opens up, with state Auditor Susan Montee a possibility. Bond, who will turn 71 during the election year, is expected to shoot for a fifth term after winning election twice as governor in 1972 and 1980. He was re-elected four years ago by a decisive 56-43 percent and had $1.3 million in cash on hand at the end of September.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Although Sen. Judd Gregg announced his intent to run in 2010 in a conference call the day after the Nov. 4 election, Democrats are not buying it. "In the end, I think he will choose to retire," said New Hampshire Democratic Chairman Raymond Buckley. He dismissed Gregg's declaration as a ploy to avoid being relegated to lame-duck status for the next two years. Buckley noted that Gregg, a former chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and a leading fiscal conservative, has not had a "real race" since 1992, when he first won election to the Senate in a close contest with Democrat John Rauh. Since then, the number of Democratic voters has grown and the party could displace the GOP as the registration leader by next year, he said.

If Gregg does run, possible Democratic challengers include Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes. Also in the mix for 2010 is Katrina Swett, daughter of the late Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., and the wife of former Rep. Richard Swett, D-N.H., who narrowly lost a bid to unseat former Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., in 1996. In a statement, Gregg said he had "nothing to add" to what he said in the conference call and said he believed it was "not constructive" to speculate about 2010 while the country was "facing extraordinary challenges."

NORTH CAROLINA

Republicans are still reeling over the loss of Sen. Elizabeth Dole, one of the nation's most recognizable politicians, and this red state going for President-elect Obama. Nevertheless, the GOP is optimistic about defending the seat of freshman Sen. Richard Burr, who as a five-term House member in 2004 defeated Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. Burr won his Senate seat during a triumphant Republican year in which President Bush captured 56 percent of the vote in the state. Bowles, now president of the University of North Carolina, is questionable as a repeat candidate against Burr, since he also lost to Dole in 2002.

Potential Democratic challengers include state Treasurer Richard Moore and Attorney General Roy Cooper. Moore lost a primary this year to Beverly Perdue, who went on to be elected governor this month. One or more of eight Democrats in the House might also run. Despite the Democrats' recent wins, Republican political consultant Paul Shumaker doesn't see a long-term shift. "Politics is fluid," Shumaker said, "It swings to the left. It swings to the right. It can't swing any further to the left." An adviser to Burr, Shumaker says the GOP has to connect with voters on kitchen-table issues and win over growing urban areas.

OHIO

Democrats say they have momentum going for them when Sen. George Voinovich seeks a new term in two years. That optimism is fueled by President-elect Obama's win in this swing state, the 2006 victory by Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland and a deep bench of potential candidates. The key question seems to be whether the party will choose a challenger through self-vetting or a contested primary.

"There is no question [Voinovich] will be challenged," said Hamilton County Democratic Party Chairman Tim Burke, a Cincinnati lawyer. "We will have Ted Strickland at the top of the ticket running for re-election, and he is as popular a governor as I've ever been around, so that will help the Democrat running for Senate." Burke and others have mentioned Lt. Gov. Lee Fischer as a potential Voinovich foe. State Treasurer Richard Cordray, who was elected state attorney general earlier this month, is also in the mix, though Burke believes he will instead run for re-election. Rep. Tim Ryan has been traveling the state, building his name recognition, and could emerge as a challenger. Burke said Ryan, a Roman Catholic, has been aggressively courting Catholics as the party tries to recapture their support. Other potential candidates include Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Zack Space and Betty Sutton-- and Peter Lawson Jones, a member of the board of commissioners in Cuyahoga County [Cleveland], a Democratic stronghold.

OKLAHOMA

The big question is whether Sen. Tom Coburn will run for a second term. "I'm not going to make that decision until February or March," Coburn said a week after Election Day, and he added that even the appearance of a "Coburn for Senate 2010" Web site is not conclusive. "That's something you have to do if you have any money come in," he said. Money is not something Coburn appears to be concerned about, given that he had just $69,000 in cash on hand at the end of September. But Coburn is not your average candidate. He got into the Senate race in 2004 after the field had filled out, yet won the GOP primary with 61 percent of the vote and then the general election despite being outspent by $1.1 million by former Democratic Rep. Brad Carson.

If Coburn chooses to run, Democratic Gov. Brad Henry, who will be term-limited from running again in 2010, would be the logical Democratic choice. But spokesmen for Henry ruled out a race after he won re-election in 2006. Rep. Dan Boren, the only Democrat left in the House delegation, has also ruled out a run. Oklahoma has become a solidly Republican state, with GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain carrying all 77 counties. Other than conservative Sen. David Boren-- Dan Boren's father-- no Democrat has won a Senate election in more than four decades.

PENNSYLVANIA

Will he or won't he? Both parties are watching closely to see if Chris Matthews, the anchor of MSNBC's "Hardball" and a former aide to the late House Speaker Thomas (Tip) O'Neill, will challenge Sen. Arlen Specter. Specter, who was first elected to the Senate in 1980, is expected to seek his sixth term despite a recurrence of cancer that required him to undergo a grueling form of treatment. Specter lost his hair, but was a constant presence in the Senate chamber and on the squash court. Matthews has long touted his Pennsylvania roots and told anyone who would listen at this year's Democratic convention that he was seriously weighing a run.

Matthews' high-visibility perch as a brash political commentator would give him instant recognition on the campaign trail, but Specter is no slouch when it comes to being known. The former Philadelphia district attorney was the lawyer for the Warren Commission who came up with the "magic bullet" theory that was used as the basis for saying that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, assassinated President John Kennedy. Specter has sharp political elbows developed over a series of close races, so the race could become the cycle's marquee matchup. If Matthews doesn't run, the role of challenger could fall to Democratic Rep. Allyson Schwartz.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Outspoken conservative Sen. Jim DeMint routinely defies former President Reagan's 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." As a freshman senator, he has not been shy about taking on fellow Republicans or party leaders. After he publicly blamed President Bush and Sen. John McCain for Republican losses, he was openly criticized by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. Still, DeMint enters the next election cycle with an edge; no Democrats have come forward yet to challenge him.

One prospective opponent is former state Democratic Party Chairman Joe Erwin. Others mentioned are state Sens. Gerald Malloy and Vince Sheehan, although party watchers say much depends on who decides to run for governor in 2010. It is not clear whether former Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum will run again. She lost to DeMint by 10 points in 2004. She is said to be interested in a position in the Obama administration. DeMint's views-- National Journal rated DeMint the most conservative senator for the last two years-- wears well in a state that went for McCain's presidential bid this year by 54 percent to 45 percent.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Democrats could have a tall order in knocking off Sen. John Thune, but an operative with the South Dakota Democratic Party knows how they are going to go after him in 2010. The operative acknowledged that Thune's upset of then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle in 2004 and the attacks he used to win are still "pretty fresh in people's minds." Thune attacked Daschle for being an obstructionist in the Senate who tried to stall the GOP agenda, and put his own leadership ambitions over the needs of the state. The operative said Thune's appointment as vice chairman of the Republican Conference will leave him open to attacks he used against Daschle.

The biggest name Democrats can hope to attract to the race is Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, but all indications are that she is contemplating a run for governor and the bench behind her is not very deep. "All roads lead to Pierre," for Herseth Sandlin, the operative said, noting her grandfather, Ralph Herseth, was governor, and her grandmother, Lorna Herseth, served as South Dakota's secretary of state. South Dakota's at-large seat has been a springboard for many of its senators, because the member has to run statewide every two years. Daschle, Johnson and Thune have all held the seat, and Herseth Sandlin took 68 percent of the vote in her re-election earlier this month.

UTAH

As one of the most reliably Republican states, Utah is expected to easily give GOP Sen. Robert Bennett, a fourth term. While he lacks the national profile of senior Sen. Orrin Hatch, he is popular and has had little trouble winning re-election since he won his first term with 55 percent of the vote. Few Democratic candidates are viewed as viable statewide and Republicans hold all statewide elected offices. Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson, whose father served as the state's last Democratic governor from 1976 to 1984, is seen as a possible challenger, although observers say a run for governor is more likely.

This year Republican Sen. John McCain took 63 percent of the vote in the presidential contest, while Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman won re-election with 78 percent of the vote. Matheson was first elected in 2000 and has been a Republican target. Matheson defeated his opponent by 1,641 votes in 2002, following redistricting. Since then he has increased his margin of victory, winning this year with 63 percent of the vote. Another possible Democrat is Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon. Salt Lake is the state's most-populous county.

Mormons Makin' Trouble

Bush shakes hands with the head of the Mormon cult, vicious bigot Thomas Monson

Dan Wentzel reported a bus driver, a homophobic bigot, to the L.A. Transit Authority after he insulted gay protesters. Dan feels guilty. He's all torn up. "The driver has a right to free speech and is entitled to his beliefs and opinions-- and his bigotry-- just like everyone else. However, he was a public employee in uniform, on the clock... I found myself with a moral dilemma. What if this person was fired as a result of my complaint? These are tough economic times. Would he find another job? What if he was just having a really bad day?" He spent 2 days going back and forth trying to decide what to do. Finally he made up his mind to report the bigot.

What if he was fired? Isn't that the whole point? What if he can't find another job? What if he can't pay his rent and gets evicted? What if he starves? Revolutions that succeed don't let these kinds of things get in the way, not to the point of inaction. Dan did the right thing. He didn't pull out a gun and shoot the bigot. He didn't follow him home and set his house on fire.

Today's Washington Post has another story about standing up to homophobia-- but to the organized, institutionalized kind: the filthy Mormon cult which has used tens of millions of dollars-- perhaps some of it illegally-- to spew its obsessive, crazed hatred. Long ago Mormon zombies started seeping out of Utah and infecting other states in the West, particularly Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona and California. And wherever they go, they strive to grasp political power for their bizarre satanic cult. Americans barely beat back an attempt by one of them, Mitt Romney, to take over the White House this year.

Ironically, the Mormons in political office are not all of one mind. Sure, most are dangerous reactionary scum, but there are also decent progressive officials who were born into-- or even adopted-- Mormonism and who have been a force for good. There will be 2 less Mormons in Congress in 2008 than there were in 2006. The Senate was a wash, where Mormon Gordon Smith (R-OR) was defeated for re-election by Jeff Merkley but where progressive Democrat (and Mormon) Tom Udall replaced conservative non-Mormon Pete Domenici in New Mexico. Of the other 4 senatorial Mormons, 3 are far right extremist Republicans-- Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Mike Crapo (R-ID)-- and one is a moderate Democrat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

The net loss for Mormons comes in the House, where New Mexico's Udall was replaced by Ben Lujan, and where another Mormon, John Doolittle (R-CA) was indicted on bribery charges and forced to resign. The only new Mormon elected is a lunatic fringe wingnut, Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) who replaced a more mainstream conservative Chris Cannon, also a Mormon, of course. Although it isn't official, only Mormons can be elected to high office in backward, theocratic Utah. The other two House members from Utah are far right Rob Bishop (R) and conservative Jim Matheson (D). The other 5 Mormon members of the House are all extreme right-wing Republicans, Mike Simpson (R-ID), Dean Heller (R-NV), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Wally Herger (R-CA), and Buck McKeon (R-CA). Their voting records are almost identical: rubber stamp Republican extremists, reflecting a hard core, intolerant Mormon perspective rather than an American one.

The Mormons were the driving force behind the viciously homophobic and anti-American Prop 8 that they managed to narrowly pass in California, targeting gay families for unbearable Nazi-like discrimination. Now they're whining that gays are acting mean towards them. Yet no one has bombed any of their cult centers or perpetrated any violence towards them. Gay leaders are unanimously urging angry victims of Mormon bigotry and hatred to focus on love and compassion and to never turn towards violence. Gays are always reminded-- and rightfully so-- that it is only the evil Cult leaders and their brainwashed believers and not all Mormons who are the progenitors of the bigotry. There are Mormons who fought against the divisive proposition. As the Post reminds us, "There are Mormons so upset they're thinking of renouncing their church membership as well as Mormons who wholeheartedly supported the initiative."

It's unusual for an institution to shrink from responsibility for a victory at the ballot box. But being Mormon isn't quite like being, say, Southern Baptist. The highly centralized LDS church makes a lot of Americans nervous, and it has done so since Joseph Smith founded the movement, which was driven out of state after state before settling in the Salt Lake Valley. Where some see an efficient religious organization that requires unusual devotion from its members, others see conspiracy, even cult.

It's an impression that has its roots in, among other things, the church's practice of polygamy in the 19th century, and it has been self-reinforcing since. Non-Mormons see the church as outside the mainstream; Mormons feel under attack, which fosters a tight communalism within their congregations, and they try to avoid confrontation. Hence [cult spokesman Michael] Otterson doing his best to play down the role church members had in the victory of Proposition 8 in the face of throngs demonstrating in front of temples.

Mormons all over the world are complaining that their cult's interference in California has been a PR disaster and that potential converts are slamming the doors in the faces of the 52,000 brain-sucking zombies the Mormons send out to recruit new members into the cult. Still, the top cult leaders, particularly the newly installed foul chief Mormon who instigated the whole thing, Thomas Monson, say the whole disgraceful episode was a net plus because they were able to bond with other extremist religionist groups, groups that have traditionally targeted the Mormons for their anti-Christian practices.

The Mormons have never come to grips with their own vile history. It defines what they are today:

Don't Waste Your Money In The Louisiana Run-Off Between A Democratic Conservative And A Republican Conservative

This morning the DCCC sent our a scary e-mail: "Dick Cheney's Last Stand." It's a fundraising e-mail to Democratic activists begging for money to fight "radical conservative John Fleming in the upcoming special election in Louisiana's 4th District." And John Fleming is a radical conservative. The DCCC shill on the other hand is just a plain garden variety conservative. If the DCCC had any respect for Democratic activists they might say something about the Democratic candidate, Paul Carmouche, not just about Cheney and Fleming.

On his own website, Carmouche emphasizes that he is "100% pro-life" and "100% pro gun." His words. The rest of his issues page could pretty much belong to a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian-- boiler plate verbiage about helping the middle class. And Paul wants to get out of Iraq "but we must do so with honor." The DCCC can shove this one up its ass. There's every reason to believe that Carmouche is likely to be as bad a member of Congress as the just-defeated Don Cazayoux, also from Louisiana and also a reactionary Democrat. Cazayoux won the special election last year because African-American voters in Baton Rouge trusted that he would vote like a Democrat. When they were disappointed to see him get into Congress and start voting with the GOP over and over, they refused to support him and he lost his seat to a right-wing Republican loon.

Louisiana's 4th CD is 33% African American but many recognize Carmouche for what he is and the latest polling shows that African Americans will make up only 22% of the voters in the special election. That's smart thinking because Carmouche is far more likely to be a drag on the Democratic Party's agenda for change than a help with it.

Earlier in the year Shreveport state Senator Lydia Jackson (D) urged her supporters not to vote for Carmouche. "I don't think Paul Carmouche is a good candidate, period. I think the party decided on a conservative white male, they thought that's our best candidate. But Paul Carmouche wasn't necessarily the best choice." DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen doesn't agree and he's trying to raise money for the conservative Carmouche. He points out that Carmouche "fits a mold that has been particularly successful for Democrats this cycle-- Southern moderates from districts President Bush and John McCain won. 'Moderate and conservative Democrats are winning in districts that George Bush carried in 2004 and John McCain carried this cycle because our candidates reflect the values and priorities of their districts.'" So? What good are they when they get to Washington and vote with the GOP? All that money the DCCC wasted on right-wing fake Dems from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party could have elected genuine progressives who would be working to solve America's problems, instead of plotting with Republicans and Blue Dogs how to hold up change. Just a fraction of what the DCCC spent on reactionaries like Carmouche, the two conservatives in Alabama (Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith), Michael Montagano (IN), and Raul Martinez in Miami-Dade might have elected progressives Doug Tudor (FL), Annette Taddeo (FL), Debbie Cook (CA), Bill Durston (CA), Russ Warner (CA) or even a solid actual moderate like Alabama's Josh Segall (instead of a reactionary).

So... if you were planning on donating to the DCCC today, think twice about helping put another corporate shill who will vote against women's choice, against sane gun control, against equal rights, against immigrants, against a quick end to war into office. Instead, please consider a donation to the Blue America PAC, which will be helping challenge reactionary Democrats in primaries.

By the way, the DCCC has already wasted $516,392 on this race, $266,094 last week alone. The NRCC has spent $357,929 ($79,083 last week).

Will The DCCC Change Its Name To The Incumbent Protection Racket For 2010?

Bill Young (R-FL)- Time to say goodbye

One of the little secrets Congressman X told me is that the DCCC had promised the freshmen that 2010 would be all about incumbent protection and that the big guns would be focused on retention rather than expansion. Thursday the DCCC's recruitment team-- Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joseph Crowley, Steve Israel, Adam Schiff, Russ Carnahan and Bruce Braley (Emanuel and Artur Davis weren't there)-- to talk about what kind of recruiting they would be doing. Exactly a week ago, we suggested some good targets: Republicans who barely won their seats, some who ran against Democrats with no funding and no DCCC help at all, like Dan Lungren (CA), Ken Calvert (CA), Thaddeus McCotter (MI), Judy Biggert (IL), and Addison Wilson (SC). None of these were races on the DCCC radar and all of them came close enough to losing that Monday morning quarterbacks can safely speculate that at least a few could have been defeated if the Red to Blue program had done a better job, Wasserman Schultz had screwed up the program in Florida and it's a miracle that Alan Grayson managed to win-- and all too predictable that her rightist allies Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the notorious Diaz-Balart Brothers and Adam Putnam are still in office. Mario Diaz-Balart and Putnam look like good targets for next year-- unless Wasserman Shultz is in a position to protect them again.

Today's Hill makes the point that with 53 pickups in the last 2 cycles, there aren't that many districts left for them. That's patently absurd-- an attempt to create Inside the Beltway conventional wisdom out of thin air. A muscular and smart DCCC could win as many seats in 2010-- if Obama and the Democratic Congress actually address the real problems of the country in the next two years (admittedly a big "if")-- as they won in 2008. "The DCCC’s recruitment team met Thursday morning," writes Aaron Blake, "and concluded that 2010 would be an incumbent retention cycle, according to a Democratic strategist with knowledge of the meeting." This goes beyond DWS just trying to protect her Florida cronies.

There's no reason not to expect another surge of Republican retirements, a huge factor in this year's slaughter. I was looking over an interesting academic study about why members of Congress retire. "Factors such as age, electoral peril, and job satisfaction have been tested as possible explanations and evidence has emerged that each of them has at least some affect. However, congressional retirements have not been completely accounted for. One largely unexamined factor is the surge in party polarization since the 1970s. The increase in polarization created moderate and cross-pressured members in the House who were increasingly out of step with their party. It is possible that becoming isolated from one's party at a time when party was becoming increasingly important induced moderate members to retire." That accounted, at least in part, for the retirements this year of many mainstream conservatives and lead to disaster for a Republican Party caught in an accelerating downward spiral into extremism and regionalism.

Last December the House passed legislation-- unanimously-- that raised the mandatory retirement age for airline pilots to 65. One has to wonder when they look in their own House. But just taking age into account leads us to several likely retirements for 2010. The average age of a House member is 57, the oldest it's ever been. Ralph Hall (R-TX) will be 87 in 2010. Bill Young (R-FL), who will be 80 in 2010, for example, is almost surely retiring and his district really is a Democratic district now. Some of the other really old Republicans who are potential retirees (with their ages in 2010):

Roscoe Bartlett (MD)- 84
Sam Johnson (TX)- 80
Howard Coble (NC)- 79
Don Young (AK)- 77
Jerry Lewis (CA)- 76
Vern Ehlers (MI)- 76
Henry Brown (SC)- 75
Judy Biggert (IL)- 73
Buck McKeon (CA)- 72
Dan Burton (IN)- 72
Mike Castle (DE)- 71 (who, incongruously, may want to run for the Senate)
Frank Wolf (VA)- 71
Joe Pitts (PA)- 71

Several of these members had a rough time being re-elected this year and others are miserable working in a Republican Party that has become increasingly extreme and whose policies are more and more difficult to justify. The story in the Hill postulates that the DCCC "will continue to try to put pressure via paid and earned media on those who might vacate their seats-- a tactic that contributed to some of the 30 GOP retirements in the 2006 cycle."

A DWT Contest: Who Will Bush Pardon?

Republicrook Tom Kontogiannis already paid Bush $400,000 for his pardon

Most observers feel certain that pre-emptive pardons will be granted to everyone involved in the organized unconstitutional operations the Bush Regime was involved in, especially torture and the policy of non-cooperation with congressional investigations after the 2006 elections. But what about the garden variety criminals petitioning Bush as his term winds down? This morning's Washington Post points to some high-profile clemency requests. Personally, I've always felt that Bush will be eager to pardon all the Republican politicians who have the goods on him-- like Randy "Duke" Cunningham-- and that he'll make that seem more palitable by just pardoning all the crooked politicians currently incarcerated or headed for incarceration plus a couple of sleazy Louisiana nominal Democrats.

With a backlog of applications piled up at the Justice Department, high-profile criminals and their well-connected lawyers increasingly are appealing directly to President Bush for special consideration on pardons and clemency, according to people involved in the process.

Among those seeking presidential action are former junk-bond salesman Michael Milken, who hired former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, one of the nation's most prominent GOP lawyers, to plead his case for a pardon on 1980s-era securities fraud charges. Two politicians convicted of public corruption, former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) and four-term Louisiana governor Edwin W. Edwards (D), are asking Bush to shorten their prison terms.

Ted Stevens claims he doesn't want a pardon because he thinks he can win an appeal-- and knows full well that if he loses, Obama will pardon him anyway; the most exclusive club in the world sticks together and Justice isn't something any of them every really have to face.

To me the most interesting crooked Republican looking for a pardon, which he already paid $400,000 for via Cunningham, is Thomas Kontogiannis, but I'm also eager to watch what happens with some of the other GOP criminals who were superstars of Bush's lawless reign, from Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff to Tom Noe, Irving Libby (AKA "Scooter"), Mitchell Wade, Rick Renzi, Doolittle and his moll, Dusty Foggo, Brent Wilkes, et al.

How about a DWT contest? We'll ship 50 brand new CDs (so even at just $10 each, that's $500 dollars worth) to the person who names the most people who get pardons, although if your list includes someone who doesn't get a pardon, that's deducted from your score. Submit all lists to downwithtyranny@gmail.com before Bush starts issuing the pardons. Before you start working on it though, consider the resolution Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) just introduced, H.R. 1531, which urges Bush not to pardon senior administration officials for crimes the President authorized. In his resolution Nadler urges Congress to investigate the Bush Regime's most serious crimes and any pardons relating to them, and urges the post-Mukasey Attorney General to appoint an Independent Counsel to prosecute any criminal activity that's discovered.


UPDATE: THE PARDONS BEGIN WITH SMALL FRY... COKE DEALERS AND SUCH, NONE OF THE BIGGIES YET

Did Bush just wake up from his pisco sour hangover and start pardoning random criminals? The first batch of 18 looks fairly nonpolitical and kind of random, although the first guy, Leslie Owen Collier of Charlestown, Missouri appears to be an anti-environmental nut who poisoned three bald eagles, a red-tailed hawk, a great horned owl, a opossum, a raccoon and seven coyotes. Actually, the second guy, Milton Kirk Cordes, was also pardoned for an offense against animals, violating the Lacey Act: "The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378, protects both plants and wildlife by creating civil and criminal penalties for a wide array of violations.  Most notably, the Act prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported or sold. Thus, the Act underscores other federal, state, and foreign laws protecting wildlife by making it a separate offense to take, possess, transport, or sell wildlife that has been taken in violation of those laws."

Looks like there are some drug deals and bank embezzlers too, all stuff Bush can easily relate to from his own and his family experiences. Here's the whole list for you to go over while I check to see if any of them have donated to Bush's campaigns:

PARDONS:

Leslie Owen Collier (Charleston, Mo.)
Offense: Unauthorized use of a registered pesticide, 7 U.S.C. §§ 136j(a)(2)(F) and 136l(b); violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. § 668(a).
Sentence: Feb. 2, 1996; Eastern District of Missouri; two years’ probation and $10,000 in restitution.

Milton Kirk Cordes (Rapid City, S.D.)
Offense: Conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act; 18 U.S.C. § 371, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(2)(A), 3373(d)(1)(B).
Sentence: Dec. 14, 1998; District of South Dakota; 18 months’ probation conditioned on loss of hunting privileges for one year, performance of 100 hours of community service and payment of a $2,000 fine.

Richard Micheal Culpepper (Mahomet, Ill.)
Offense: False statements to the United States; 18 U.S.C. § 287.
Sentence: Jan. 15, 1988; Central District of Illinois; five years' probation conditioned on payment of a $1,000 fine and $4,351.90 in restitution.

Brenda Jean Dolenz-Helmer (Fort Worth, Texas)
Offense: Misprision of a felony; 18 U.S.C. § 4.
Sentence: Dec. 31, 1998; Northern District of Texas; four years' probation, with the special condition of 600 hours of community service and a $10,000 fine.

Andrew Foster Harley (Falls Church, Va.)
Offense: Wrongful use and distribution of marijuana and cocaine; Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Sentence: April 17, 1985, as approved June 13, 1985; U.S. Air Force general court martial convened at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo.; 90 days' confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dismissal from the Air Force.

Obie Gene Helton (Rossville, Ga.)
Offense: Unauthorized acquisition of food stamps; 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b), 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Sentence: April 1, 1983; Eastern District of Tennessee; two years’ probation, $500 fine and $875 in restitution.

Carey C. Hice Sr.- Travelers Rest, S.C.
Offense: Income tax evasion; 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Sentence: March 5, 1996; District of South Carolina; three years’ probation condition on 180 days' home confinement and a $13,000 fine.

Geneva Yvonne Hogg (Chamblee, Ga.)
Offense: Bank embezzlement; 18 U.S.C. § 657.
Sentence: June 19, 1980; District of South Carolina; five years’ probation and a $500 fine.

William Hoyle McCright Jr. (Midland, Texas)
Offense: Making false entries, books, reports or statements of bank; 18 U.S.C. § 1005.
Sentence: Oct. 20, 1986, as amended September 23, 1987; Western District of Texas; two years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.

Paul Julian McCurdy (Sulphur, Okla.)
Offense: Misapplication of bank funds by a bank officer; 18 U.S.C. § 656.
Sentence: Feb. 12, 1988; Eastern District of Oklahoma; five years’ probation and $5,000 in restitution.

Robert Earl Mohon Jr. (Grant, Ala.)
Offense: Conspiracy to distribute marijuana; 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846.
Sentence: Oct. 22, 1987; Northern District of Alabama; three years in prison.

Ronald Alan Mohrhoff - (Los Angeles)
Offense: Unlawful use of a telephone in furtherance of a narcotics felony, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b); possession of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 844(a).
Sentence: Oct. 9, 1984; Central District of California; one year of in prison followed by five years’ probation with the special condition of 2,500 hours of community service.

COMMUTATIONS:

John Edward Forte (North Brunswick, N.J.)
Offense: Aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine; 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Sentence: Nov. 20, 2001; Southern District of Texas; 168 months in prison, five years’ supervised release and a $5,000 fine.

Terms of commutation: Sentence of imprisonment to expire on Dec. 22, 2008, leaving intact and in effect the five year term of supervised release with all its conditions.

[Forte is a graduate of the elite Phillips Exeter Academy prep school who later became a producer for the The Fugees and put out a couple of his own albums. Not sure if Bush has his stuff on the White House iPod. Fellow songwriters Carly Simon and Orrin Hatch were pushing for the commutation.]

James Russell Harris (Detroit, Mich.)
Offense: Conspiracy to aid and abet the distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846; attempted money laundering, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(3) and 2; aiding and abetting the attempted distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); conspiracy to affect interstate commerce by obtaining property under color of official right, 18 U.S.C. § 1951; attempt to affect interstate commerce by obtaining property under color of official right, 18 U.S.C. § 1951.
Sentence: May 10, 1993; Eastern District of Michigan; 360 months in prison, five years’ supervised release and a $50,000 fine.

Terms of clemency grant: Unpaid balance of fine remitted; sentence of imprisonment commuted to expire on Dec. 22, 2008, leaving intact and in effect the five year term of supervised release with all its conditions save the obligation to satisfy the unpaid balance of the fine.

What The Hell Is EFCA Anyway And Why Is It The Holy Grail?

When Republicans have no answer for why anyone should trust anything they say now that their policies have brought our country to the verge of collapse, they scream "card check." To their Pavlovian base it's like screaming "Better dead than Red" or something about homos recruiting your children or Blacks getting our women or Mexicans taking our jobs. It's the far right's bright shiny objet du jour. But it's also something organized labor has lost it's own mind over.

That's not to say that the arguments in favor aren't 100% correct and that the far right isn't 100% wrong. It is and they are. But all through this past election cycle I kept hearing about how progressive, independent labor unions (so not just toadies like AFSCME) were pouring money into the campaigns of the most reactionary anti-working family nominal Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, proven assholes like Bruce Lunsford (KY) and John Barrow (GA). And every single time I would look into why, it was always that same answer: they had agreed to support EFCA. So what is it that would cause otherwise rational progressives to sell their souls to Satan?

H.R. 800 (and S. 1041), the Employee Free Choice Act could well be the single most important piece of economic legislation winding its way through Congress. The Senate version was introduced by Ted Kennedy and the only Democrats who are not co-sponsors aren't real Democrats anyway-- Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Ken Salazar (CO). Longtime working family champion George Miller (D-CA) introduced it in the House and there are 234 co-sponsors. A small handful of uber-reactionary anti-labor "Democrats," Dan Boren (OK), Gene Taylor (MS), Travis Childers (MS), Mike McIntyre (NC), and defeated jackasses Don Cazayoux (LA) and Tim Mahoney (FL), refused to sign on, but mainstream conservative Republicans like Frank Lobiondo (NJ), Peter King (NY), Steve LaTourette (OH), Chris Shays (CT), Chris Smith (NJ), Vito Fossella (NY), John McHugh (NY) are also co-sponsors.

OK, so what is it? In broad strokes, the bill seeks to allow working people to use collective bargaining to get better wages, benefits and working conditions by restoring workers’ freedom to choose for themselves whether to join a union. If you thought that was a battle that was one decades ago, think again-- or read Cornell Professor Jefferson Cowie's simple explanation of why this bill is so crucial.

This evening at dinner I was reading from Barbara Ehrenreich's collection of essays, This Land Is YourTheir Land and I came across a chapter on EFCA: "Challenging The Workplace Dictatorship." I felt it was worth transcribing so I could share it with DWT readers.

When the Employee Free Choice Act came up for consideration in the Senate, conservative columnist George F. Will has suddenly developed a tender concern for workers' rights. The act, which would require employers to recognize a union whenever a majority of works sign union cards-- thus bypassing the often prolonged and creaky process of a National Labor Relations Board-supervised secret ballot vote-- has stalled, in part because of critics like Will who complained that it "strips all workers of privacy," and will repeal "a right to secret ballots-- long considered fundamental to a democratic culture." As he sees it, the unions are backing the act out of sheer desperation: since they can't seem to win a fair fight for workers' allegiance, they want government to take away the workers' rights and help herd them into union membership.

OK, now let's leave Will-land and enter an actual American workplace. Are you punched in? Good. The first thing to notice is that you've checked your basic civil rights at the door. Freedom of speech? Forget about it: Some employers bar speech of any kind with your fellow employees. I saw this firsthand at a chain restaurant and a Wal-Mart store. Wanna work? Zip your lips.

How about those privacy rights that Will so concerned about? Nada-- they don't exist outside of Will-land either. You probably had to pee in a cup to get your job in the first place, which constitutes a very intimate chemical invasion of privacy. In most states, your purse or backpack can be searched by the employer at any time; your emails and web activity can be monitored.

Right of assembly? Sorry, you don't have that either. In my experience, most managers see a group of three or more employees talking together as an insurrection in the making. Shut up and get back to work!

Since Will doesn't seem to know what happens before an NLRB-supervised secret ballot vote, here's how it works. During the increasingly prolonged lag between the initial card signing and the actual vote, management uses every means possible to intimidate, isolate, and harass the union's supporters. Most commonly workers are called away from their jobs and required to attend management-run meetings where they are subjected to anti-union harangues and videos. Note: Not only do workers lack freedom of assembly, they lack the freedom to not assemble. If management announces a 2 PM meeting, you better be there. These are called "captive audience meetings" for a reason.

At the meetings, which may take place daily in the weeks leading up to an NLRB election, management lays out a dire picture of what will happen if the union comes in: Workers will lose the right to talk to managers individually (not true); they will see their wages and benefits decline (emphatically not true); they will be stuck paying exorbitant dues (hardly); the company may have to move to Mexico ... Sorry, no questions or comments from the audience.

Most pro-union workers can withstand the company's mass captive audiences. Harder to resist are the one-on-one and small group meetings, where individual workers are grilled about their union allegiance for as many hours as it takes. During one union drive among truck drivers, management confronted workers one by one about personal issues like their credit ratings and family responsibilities. A lot of them finally broke down, and the union drive was defeated.

There's nothing wrong with management voicing its view on unions-- say, in a flyer to workers-- and certainly nothing wrong with secret ballots. The problem lies in the abuse of management power in the period between the initial union card signing and the NLRB-sponsored secret ballot election. If workers are willing to sign a union card-- which is a courageous step all by itself-- that should be enough to signify their choice.

Will calls the Employee Free Choice Act "Orwellian." But Orwell's fascist 1984 is already here and it's called the American workplace. What really scares employers about the Employee Free Choice Act is that it will begin to change that-- and bring the first stirrings of democracy to work.

Good news though-- all the Democrats elected in the Senate are likely to be EFCA supporters, as are almost all the new Democratic House members-- we'll have to see about the 2 right-wingers from Alabama the DCCC wasted so many millions of dollars electing-- and, more importantly, one of the sponsors of the Senate bill is Barack H. Obama. The House already passed the bill 241 to 185 on March 1, 2007. On June 26 the Republicans managed to filibuster the bill to death, 48 Republicans joining in that effort. The only Republican joining the Democrats to end the filibuster was Arlen Specter (R-PA). Tim Johnson (D-SD), a co-sponsor, was in the hospital and couldn't vote. Several of the anti-working families Republicans who joined the filibuster were defeated-- or have retired and been replaced-- by Democrats: Wayne Allard (CO), Elizabeth Dole (NC), Pete Domenici (NM), Gordon Smith (OR), Ted Stevens (AK), John Sununu (NH) and John Warner (VA). If the vote were to take place today there is every indication that it would be 59- 40. That's one short of passage-- and that's why the recount in Minnesota and the re-run in Georgia are both so important. Both Coleman and Chambliss hate working people and will do anything to hold them back. If either one of them is defeated, EFCA will pass. (The alternative is to persuade another Republican senator to come over to the Light-- maybe Olympia Snowe or George Voinovich or Lisa Murkowski.) But the best hope right now: defeat Saxby Chambliss and elect Jim Martin; we know which side each of them is on:

An Important Film On The History Of American Music: Cadillac Records

December 5th is the release date for the film, Cadillac Records, the story of the most legendary of all American record labels, Chicago's Chess Records. Chess was founded in 1950 by Leonard and Philip Chess, two Jewish immigrants from Poland, and its address, 2120 So. Michigan Avenue, was immortalized by a Rolling Stones song of the same name. It's now the home of the Blues Heaven Foundation. The label itself was the home of a breathtaking list of artists including Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Sonny Boy Williamson, Memphis Slim, Jimmy Rogers, John Lee Hooker, Buddy Guy, The Flamingos, Chuck Berry, the Moonglows, Bo Diddley, Etta James, The Dells, Johnny "Guitar" Watson, Fontella Bass, Willie Dixon, Moms Mabley...

The film was written and directed by Darnell Martin and stars Adrien Brody as Leonard Chess, Jeffrey Wright as Muddy Waters, Mos Def as Chuck Berry, and Beyoncé as Etta James. Here's the trailer:



And here's Beyoncé's cover of the classic Etta James song, "At Last," which will be released as the soundtrack's first single in two weeks:

Is Bush A Stinking Drunk Again?

Never having been a drinker, I don't turn to, or think of turning to, alcohol in stressful times. In fact, the notion makes no sense to me at all, but, like I said, I was never a drinker. I'm thinkin' it would make more sense in trying times to have your wits about you. That's especially true for someone with ponderous responsibilities on his shoulders like... say the president of the United States at a time when his domestic and international policies are coming home to roost and putting millions of American families in grave jeopardy.

It speaks volumes about the character of George W. Bush that he's been hitting the bottle again. A few years ago Dr. Justin Frank, a Washington D.C. psychiatrist and author of Bush On The Couch: Inside The Mind Of The President warned everyone: "I do think that Bush is drinking again. Alcoholics who are not in any program, like the President, have a hard time when stress gets to be great... I think it's a concern that Bush disappears during times of stress. He spends so much time on his ranch. It's very frightening."

Now he's in Lima and he's been imbibing the traditional pisco sour at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. I called my friend Roland, a big fan of Peru and of pisco, to ask him if the stuff is strong. He suggested I listen to this tape of an inebriated Richard Nixon and said, "it's 20 times stronger than whatever he was drinking." It's like a power-packed margarita: Peruvian brandy with lemon juice, raw egg whites, some syrup and regional bitters-- and was invented by an American in Lima in the 1920s as a substitute for a whiskey sour. It has the same effect.

A few days ago Paul Krugman warned about the dangers of a power vacuum reminiscent of the time between FDR was elected in November 1932 and the times he was inaugurated in March 1933. "In 2008, as in 1932, a long era of Republican political dominance came to an end in the face of an economic and financial crisis that, in voters’ minds, both discredited the G.O.P.’s free-market ideology and undermined its claims of competence."

There is, however, another and more disturbing parallel between 2008 and 1932-- namely, the emergence of a power vacuum at the height of the crisis. The interregnum of 1932-1933, the long stretch between the election and the actual transfer of power, was disastrous for the U.S. economy, at least in part because the outgoing administration had no credibility, the incoming administration had no authority and the ideological chasm between the two sides was too great to allow concerted action. And the same thing is happening now.

...How much can go wrong in the two months before Mr. Obama takes the oath of office? The answer, unfortunately, is: a lot. Consider how much darker the economic picture has grown since the failure of Lehman Brothers, which took place just over two months ago. And the pace of deterioration seems to be accelerating.

Most obviously, we’re in the midst of the worst stock market crash since the Great Depression: the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has now fallen more than 50 percent from its peak. Other indicators are arguably even more disturbing: unemployment claims are surging, manufacturing production is plunging, interest rates on corporate bonds — which reflect investor fears of default-- are soaring, which will almost surely lead to a sharp fall in business spending. The prospects for the economy look much grimmer now than they did as little as a week or two ago.

What can Obama do? He announced his nomination of Tim Geithner and Wall Street reacted deliriously and this week he'll probably repeat that by announcing the rest of his economic team and by continuing to send soothing signals to the Market.

What can Bush do? Well, just delay the inevitable personal disintegration for a couple months wouldn't be too much to ask. Thomas Friedman, who stopped making any sense years ago, actually came up with a good idea today-- if one that no one will take seriously, being accustomed to only taking his bad ideas seriously. He suggests that Bush appoint Geithner Treasury secretary now, replacing Henry Paulson.

[W]e can’t afford two months of transition where the markets don’t know who is in charge or where we’re going. At the same time, Congress should remain in permanent session to pass any needed legislation.

This is the real “Code Red.” As one banker remarked to me: “We finally found the W.M.D.” They were buried in our own backyard-- subprime mortgages and all the derivatives attached to them.

Yet, it is obvious that President Bush can’t mobilize the tools to defuse them-- a massive stimulus program to improve infrastructure and create jobs, a broad-based homeowner initiative to limit foreclosures and stabilize housing prices, and therefore mortgage assets, more capital for bank balance sheets and, most importantly, a huge injection of optimism and confidence that we can and will pull out of this with a new economic team at the helm.

The last point is something only a new President Obama can inject. What ails us right now is as much a loss of confidence-- in our financial system and our leadership-- as anything else. I have no illusions that Obama’s arrival on the scene will be a magic wand, but it would help.

Right now there is something deeply dysfunctional, bordering on scandalously irresponsible, in the fractious way our political elite are behaving-- with business as usual in the most unusual economic moment of our lifetimes. They don’t seem to understand: Our financial system is imperiled.

When Will Obama Officially Go From Being One Of Us To One Of Them?

DWT endorsed Obama as an inspirational figure and as the best choice to defeat the unspeakably horrid alternative, though never as a transformative candidate. (We never quite went so far as endorsing Bankruptcy Bill Biden, although we noted that he was a far better choice than strawmen Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine, let alone Sarah Palin.) As Glenn Greenwald and Digby point out in Salon today, Obama made no promises or entreaties to get netroots support.

Nor did he ever portray himself as anything other than what he is: a moderate technocrat. Despite the foolish and completely deceptive shill claims from McCain and the far right that Obama was the "most liberal" member of the Senate, he was, in fact, the 46th most liberal (out of 50 Democrats), down at the bottom of the barrel snuggled between his mentor Joe Lieberman and religionist nutcase Mark Pryor. He was never even close, in terms of supporting a progressive agenda, to Hillary Clinton. We warned our readers not to get their hopes too far up lest they come crashing down with a dangerous velocity. Blue America looked closely at his voting record and decided to not ask our community to donate money to his campaign but to concentrate our fundraising on genuine, unabashed progressive congressional candidates like Jeff Merkley, Donna Edwards, Darcy Burner, Andrew Rice, Alan Grayson, Carol Shea-Porter and Jerrold Nadler. We've raised around $1.5 million and none of it went to Obama's campaign. Seventeen of our candidates-- with one race, Charlie Brown's, still undecided (though not looking good)-- won their races.

We've not one of the blogs complaining that Obama is excluding progressives from his administration. He's doing exactly what we expected him to do and exactly what he always said he would do. I have to admit, though, that I was a little disappointed-- if not completely surprised-- that he's already started sending out signals that he would be unable to keep his most basic actual campaign promises, like rolling back a tax cut for multimillionaires and getting rid of discriminatory homophobic rules in the military.

President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise-- to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans-- as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday.

David Axelrod, the Obama campaign strategist who was chosen to be a senior White House adviser, was asked if the tax cuts could be allowed to expire on schedule after tax year 2010 rather than being rolled back by legislation earlier. "Those considerations will be made," he said on Fox News Sunday.

Bill Daley, an adviser to Obama and commerce secretary under former President Bill Clinton, said on NBC's Meet the Press that the 2010 scenario "looks more likely than not."

President George W. Bush's tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010. After that they would revert to 2001 levels, when the top individual tax rate was 39.6 percent.

Obama has called for reducing taxes for the middle class, but requiring the wealthiest Americans to pay more than the current top rate of 35 percent.

His aides' comments suggest Obama may be wary of imposing any additional tax burden at a time of deep crisis, despite the outlook for record budget deficits and mounting national debt. He may also be seeking to bolster Republican support for his recovery measures.

Right now that's just a trial balloon, a big one, but I'm guessing it will soon turn many of us unsolicited Obama supporters from skeptics to opponents. Different straws will break different backs. Some already turned away from him in disgust when he named reactionary corporatist Larry Summers the director of the National Economic Council, someone who, no doubt, urged this decision on him. Oh well... We shouldn't be surprised that we get middle-of-the-road policies from an avowed middle-of-the-road candidate.


UPDATE: THE SNL RAHM EMANUEL SKIT THE DIDN'T GET AIRED

Ha, ha... very funny. Obama's first personnel choice is the worst Democrat in the entire corrupted Insider Establishment and everyone wants to make it a laughing matter. It isn't and in it are the seeds of doom.

Dozens Of Congressmen Sleep In Their Offices

Jason Chaffetz: Another useless nut arrives in DC

There aren't a lot of Republican freshmen this year. There weren't many in 2006 either. In fact there're only two in the Senate, rightist kooks from two clueless red states, Idaho and Nebraska. And the House has a handful, including 3 lunatic fringe extremists who defeated right-wing Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, Nick Lampson (TX), Don Cazayoux (LA) and Tim Mahoney (FL). Another lunatic fringe extremist, Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) beat a more mainstream conservative, Chris Cannon in a primary. Chaffetz already has a nickname, Cot Guy because he arrived in DC with a cot which he plans to sleep on in his office.

Hopefully he'll be showering in the House gym. He's not the only frugal member of Congress to save money by sleeping in his office. Last year we saw that conservative nominal Democrat Lipinski sleeps on his office floor. So do Arizona's two right-wing extremists Jeff Flake and John Shadegg. It's a shame fellow Arizonan John McCain won't let them stay in one of his dozen or so mansions.

Flake said that for him, the decision is based purely on economics.

"I'm a cheapskate. I've got kids to put through college," he said.

"The truth is-- I don't know what the figure is-- but there are dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens. I would put the figure probably at, probably, I don't know, 60 or 70 or 80 members that do that," he said.

Those dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of U.S. senators and representatives are trying to stretch their paychecks further. Rank-and-file members are being paid $169,300 this year and are scheduled to receive a cost-of-living increase in their paychecks next year.

They receive no housing allowances and are responsible for making their own living arrangements in a city where rents are notoriously high.

Other right-wingers who sleep in their offices include Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), Denny Rehberg (R-MT), Lee Terry (R-NE) and John Sullivan (R-OK) but Tim Walberg (R-MI), who used his office as a dorm and lost his seat, told reporters last year that, "based on what he saw in the health club each morning, as many as 40 other congressmen sleep in their offices. Members and their office staffers aren’t so keen on giving out names, and no offices would confess to knowing who or how many are asleep near their desks."

Chaffetz paid $44.89 for his new cot, which he bought in a local grocery store. He brought it to Washington wrapped in a garbage bag. (See photo above.)

The Road To 60-- And Unemployment Insurance

How can we really know how Georgia's embattled reactionary senator, Saxby Chambliss, would have voted on the unemployment compensation extension bill Friday? With Georgia's unemployment level rising to 7%-- the highest since 1992-- Chambliss, who didn't bother going to Washington to vote, claims he would have voted for the extension. Georgia voters, who will decide between Chambliss' implied pledge to block all the reforms and all the change President Obama tries to enact, and Jim Martin's resounding pledge to help President Obama get the nation back on its feet after years and years of wrong-headed right-wing policies uniformly pushed by Chambliss.

With the Minnesota race tightening every time another batch of votes is recounted and Al Franken looking likely to oust Republican rubber stamp Norm Coleman, the only hope the GOP has to keep Obama from succeeding in saving America-- and perhaps dealing a well deserved fatal blow to right-wing extremism as a viable political brand in America-- is in the blood red heart of Dixie, Georgia. And Martin is no reactionary from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. He's the real deal.

Forget for a moment that Democratic cohesion in House and Senate caucuses filled with Blue Dogs and DLC types who in many ways are as reactionary as Republicans and nearly as fearful and unsupportive of working families as the GOP is mostly wishful thinking. And forget the desperation the GOP feels about the recount in Minnesota and the run-off in Georgia. Let's instead just narrow the discussion down to helping Georgians make an educated guess about how Chambliss would really have voted on extending unemployment benefits-- especially if he wasn't battling for his political life back home.

Looking at the aggregate voting records of the 6 Republican right-wing extremists who voted to filibuster the bill-- Jim DeMint (R-SC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), James Inhofe (R-OK), Tom Coburn (R-OK), John Barrasso (R-WY) and Michael Enzi (R-WY)-- clearly shows 6 of the lowest progressive scores in the Senate. The average for these six on substantive partisan bills that divide the two parties is an abysmal 2.31 (out of 100). Hard to imagine such a low score? Chambliss' is .044, far more reactionary than any of the senators who voted against extending unemployment insurance. There's no doubt that had he won the seat outright, he would have voted with his hard right colleagues to filibuster. That's who he is.

Meet Congressmember X

18 of the Blue America-endorsed candidates won congressional seats this year. One of the new members got home from a week in DC last night and called me. I'm not going to identify who the member is or even if it's a man or a woman, although for the sake of simplicity I'll refer to the member-- now and forever-- as "he." He was exhausted and talked with me for a couple hours about the first week-- fascinating stuff and I'm hoping to persuade him to create a bogus FDL account and come on one day as Congressmember X and share his first impressions.

Actually he's not a member yet-- won't be 'til January. But he had to go in for orientation and to get an office and talk about a committeee assignment and vote in the hotly contested leadership race between Dingell and Waxman. Not all the Blue America candidates voted for Waxman. Our two Michigan members, Mark Schauer and Gary Peters, were backers of Dingell. In fact Congressmember X said they were very persuasive advocates for Dingell. Further, all the very persuasive advocates were for Dingell. "He ran a far better campaign in every respect. His spokesmen gave much better speeches. John Lewis' speech on behalf of Dingell got a standing ovation." The NY Times reports that Waxman's campaign was "better organized." I suspect they got it wrong.

Waxman and many others think that Mr. Dingell’s single-minded defense of the automobile industry’s interests set back safety, mileage and emissions standards by years and helped lead the companies to their present precarious position.

Still, Mr. Dingell retained the loyalty of moderate New Democrats, conservative Blue Dogs, much of the Black Caucus and representatives of the many districts with automobile or automotive supplier plants. And many members of all stripes were reluctant to upend the seniority system that they benefit from, or hope to. Mr. Dingell, 82, has represented a suburban Detroit district since 1955 and will become the longest-serving member in House history in February. He has been the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee for 28 years.

And in the end the only argument was that you don't kill off someone who has been serving so long. It was all about seniority and loyalty and some lame excuses about the little matter of the Big 3 going bankrupt and about CAFE standards. When I told Congressmember X that he may have to go back and vote on Waxman's successor at the Oversight Committee, it was news to him.

He also told me there was no pressure whatsoever from the Leadership to do anything. He wondered if it was going to be too lax as far as direction. I expect we'll be hearing him changing that view in a short time-- although without a flaming asshole like Emanuel in the leadership there isn't an obviously personality around to wield a rubber hose on reluctant members.

So, I already pretty much told you that Congressman X is not Schauer or Peters. I'll also pretty much tell you that it's also not Larry Kissell. Larry didn't call me but he revealed his feelings about week one to Lisa Zagaroli, a McClatchy correspondent.

Larry Kissell pulled into town after dark to a "stirring sight," the grand U.S. Capitol awash with light, and the magnitude of the job before him settled in.

"It was just a great sense of humbleness and recognizing the task that I'd been entrusted with-- and a great deal of enthusiasm with the opportunity to be part of this change," said Kissell, the high school civics teacher who beat five-term incumbent Robin Hayes to represent North Carolina's 8th Congressional District in the U.S. House.

...Kissell got his first taste of being lobbied, as two long-serving lawmakers battled over the chairmanship of the influential Energy and Commerce Committee.

"There are legitimate arguments both ways. I've done my homework," said Kissell, who wouldn't say how he would vote.

Between meetings this past week, Kissell was soaking in what he could, and feeling part of history.

"As a civics teacher, you cannot escape that feeling of responsibility, the significance of what we are entrusted to do, and the history of those who came before us," he said. "There have been less than 12,000 people who have ever served in Congress."

One of the most significant meetings for him came Monday when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., brought freshmen, both Democrats and Republicans, together on the House floor in a gesture of bipartisanship.

"There's a great sense of we need to work together, and take on the nation's problems together," he said.

Kissell said he's not worried about becoming ungrounded on Capitol Hill.

"I always say I've got a 93-year-old mom at home who told me if I lost my way she'd come help me straighten it out as she has done all my life," he jokes. "I have confidence in the people around me that together we can stay directed. I remember why I took this giant step and as a school teacher saying I was going to run for Congress.…I know where I want to go. I'm not worried… I’m too far along in who I am."

Jamie Kirchick Poops His Panties Because He Wants Attention

A few days ago I was out doing chores when I jumped back into my car and the NPR station came on. The first thing I heard was the host talking with my friend Jane Hamsher about the Senate Democrats actions in the Lieberman matter. I assume he was attracted by this post she had written earlier. It's always nice to hear Jane on the radio since there aren't a lot of voices in the public forum that speak so clearly and eloquently for the interests of working families and the great moral imperatives that make up "liberalism," from equality and human dignity to empathy and honesty. The guest who followed her sure had nothing to do with any of those imperatives. I didn't know who he was when he was introduced but it didn't take more than a few seconds before his stunted anger and contemptuous and nasty right-wing verbiage made me realize the host had decided to balance The Good with The Bad and that we were now being subjected to The Bad. But The Bad was so bad that the host almost immediately had to reprimand him for his vicious personal attack on Jane by saying that Jane wasn't on the air to defend herself from his scurrilous charges so why not just try to stick to his unique version of the facts?

I soon found out that The Bad is a pissant little NeoCon asslick named James Kirchick, one of those miserable malcontents striving to be accepted by the ruling class by savaging "his own kind." He'd be a classic Uncle Tom is he was African-American. Instead he's a very unhappy gay wingnut, a sad species indeed, forever obsessed with trying to justify his pitiful existence. Predictably, he works as a propagandist for one of the most pathetic and laughable pieces of the NeoCon smear machine, The New Republic. Today, however he's attempting to thrust himself into the spotlight again with what I now recognize as one of his gratuitously divisive hissy fits, this one directed not just against Jane-- apparently one of his obsessions-- but against progressive bloggers like David Sirota and Markos Moulitsos.

The 25 year old self-loather has been all over the map politically, from supporting Ralph Nader and attacking Pat Buchanan to claiming to be a libertarian while smearing Ron Paul as racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic and a militia conspiracist. This year he's a garden variety NeoCon kook. But when you look closely at his childish writing what you find is someone always kissing up to The Man, filled with righteous indignation towards "uppity" women and working people-- who he holds in the utmost contempt. He seems to be driven with anger and vitriol because progressive men don't want to date him.

Last Sunday Glenn Greenwald opened the wounds and Kirchick has been furiously and blindly striking out at all the perceived enemies of his little cocoon-like fantasy world.

It is Jamie Kirchick -- who spent the whole year embodying the most ludicrous extremes of neoconservatism, venerating John McCain and demonizing Barack Obama as a weak radical-- who, along with Kirchick's ideological comrade, Joe Lieberman, is the symbol for the "moderate majority of the American electorate."  Therefore, any opposition to the Kirchicks and Liebermans will doom the Democratic Party.

...There is and always has been a Beltway cottage industry of trite, platitude-spouting establishment-defenders whose only "argument" consists of issuing grave warnings that Democrats will suffer if they don't ignore and scorn "the Left" (defined as any Democrat dissimilar to Joe Lieberman).  They invariably purport to speak on behalf of unseen majorities and they are invariably painfully wrong, though with no effect on future behavior.  As but one example, writing last March in The Politico, Kirchick-- then speaking on behalf of "most general election voters"-- issued this dire warning about Obama's chances in the general election:

[Obama] wants us to think that in all of his heart-to-heart conversations with [Jeremiah Wright], he never saw the angry, conspiratorial and America-hating minister now topping the charts on YouTube. Many of Obama’s supporters-- given the messianic milieu of his campaign-- are credulous enough to believe these evasions. But most general election voters will not.

I guess they were-- and now Kirchick has moved on to represent all the mainstream center-right Obama voters who elected him president. His main point being that the netroots doesn't matter. In his hysterical Daily News screed he seems to have left out the word "pajamas" but otherwise tars bloggers with all the trite, ad hominem slurs people like him use day in and day out to discredit people they disagree with: "Enraged, Impotent, Band of angry bloggers, Fumed, Huffed and puffed, Seethed, Blogger rage, Petty, vindictive and small." Like Bush, he went to Yale.

Who Gets Hillary's Old Job? Bill Would Be Good For TV Ratings But Cuomo Makes It Easier For Paterson's Re-election...

Gee, I hope they don't give the lizard a say

New York is looking for a new junior senator. Or rather Governor David Paterson is. He gets to appoint someone and he says he has no short list yet. All the calculus I've heard sounds crappy because it all involves how this or that hack's constituency will be able to help Paterson's own political ambitions. That's how you pick a United States Senator? That's why New Yorkers could wind up with a bland and inexperienced Blue Dog like Kirsten Gillibrand instead of a brilliant statesman like Jerrold Nadler? The demographic game calls for someone from Upstate or for a Latino or a woman or... anything but a potentially great senator.

Picking a replacement for Mrs. Clinton is full of consequences for New York. She has been a high-profile advocate for the state’s interests and would be leaving at a time when the state has been lobbying for more federal aid as its financial engine, Wall Street, hemorrhages. She has been a formidable campaigner for Democrats, not just by winning her two Senate elections handily but campaigning for local lawmakers across the state.

Mr. Paterson’s appointee would have to run in the 2010 election and again in 2012. If he picked someone without an established political network, that person might be seen as an attractive target for Republicans, who have few openings in New York.

Most of the names floating around are unexciting-- and any of them could have a rough time holding the seat against Giuliani in 2010. Most mentioned are Andrew Cuomo, Nydia Velázquez, Steve Israel, Nita Lowey, Gregory Meeks, Kirsten Gillibrand, Brian Higgins, Adolfo Carrión Jr, Byron Brown, Tom Suozzi, Caroline Kennedy and... Bill Clinton.

Every identity group in the state is clamoring for one of them. I haven't read anyone suggest Paterson just pick the most qualified person. Probably wouldn't do any good anyway.

Tim Geithner Worked Out Just Fine For Me... Today

I know I wasn't a typical corporate executive. As president of Reprise Records, a division of TimeWarner and, horribly, AOLTimeWarner for a brief but fatal moment in time, I had access to one of the company's corporate jets. They're very comfy and convenient, especially for international travel. I sometimes flew with other CEOs and chairmen and presidents on them. But they cost tens of thousands of dollars to operate on flights across country so I asked to use one exactly zero times. Never, not once. Just contemplating the idea made me nauseous. All that money that could be used for so many more worthwhile things... and what a colossal rip-off of the shareholders!

And rip-offs like that are small potatoes. Nina Munk's definitive book on the AOL TimeWarner merger, Fools Rush In-- Steve Case, Jerry Levin, and the Unmaking of AOL Time Warner, exposes what a real full blooded rip off is all about.

On Monday, January 10, 2000, America Online announced that it was buying Time Warner for $163 billion. The news was crazy, incredible. The biggest merger ever, it was, according to the media, an "awesome megadeal" and "a fusion of guts and glory. It was "the deal of the century" and a "mega-marriage of earth and cyberspace." An internet upstart, AOL, was buying the world's most powerful media and entertainment company. "A company that isn't old enough to buy beer," marveled the Wall Street Journal, "has, essentially swallowed an ancien regime media conglomerate that took most of a century to construct.

Two years later, after the smoke had cleared, $200 billion of shareholder value had vanished into cyberspace. One the trail of a possible fraud, the SEC and the Justice Department started investigating AOL Time Warner's accounting practices. Meanwhile, a civil war had broken out inside the company, complete with backstabbing and personal betrayals. Before long, every major player was out of the company, discredited, and humiliated. Jerry Levin, Time Warner's "resident genius," lost his job, lost his reputation, and, in the view of some people, simply "lost it." Steve Case, the visionary leader of AOL, for forced out of the company he had created.

Neither went to prison. No one did. And that "$200 billion of shareholder value [that] had vanished into cyberspace?" Oh, that. Well, estimates when all is said and done, are that Case and his cronies only looted a mere $6 billion for themselves. And what's $6 billion or so between oligarchs?-- not much compared to the Enron Scandal and the other too numerous to remember corporate hallmarks of the Bush Regime...

But from time to time I get a letter from some court or other telling me that another piece of one of the class action suits I'm involved in against Time Warner has borne some fruit. One of those letters came a few days ago.

In 2003, a class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was brought against Time Warner on behalf of certain Time Warner Savings Plan participants who held units in the Company stock fund in their 401(k) account. Time Warner reached a settlement to resolve this matter and, as a result, you will soon receive s pro-rata share of the settlement.

Specifically, Friday morning at 3AM. I had a feeling this wasn't the lawsuit that was addressing my loss of $10,000,000 (give or take) in now worthless stock options. I can't say I really understood what this one was about but I spent a couple of hours on the phone Wednesday and Thursday trying to find out from the program administrator, Fidelity. No luck. But I did find out that on Friday at around 3AM (in some time zone) they would deposit an undisclosed amount into my Fidelity account.

It dawned on me that the stock market has been crashing by hundreds of points per day-- down around 50% since Bush first stole the White House-- and that I needed to know what Fidelity account they would be dumping the undisclosed sum into. More hours of frustrating time on the phone with Fidelity. Finally someone, apparently in the hope of getting me out of her hair, agreed to change the designation for the incoming funds from "Growth Fund" (something that could easily lose 5-10% of it's value on the day it was deposited) to a cash account.

It felt like Christmas without the tree when I tiptoed downstairs this morning at around 5:30AM and called Fidelity to see what had happened. The settlement, or my part in it, was ok-- more than enough to pay for my trip to Mali, not enough to buy Roland his new house-- but I flipped out when they told me it had been deposited in "Growth Fund." And there was nothing they could do about it until the 4PM close of the trading day. That meant my money would rise or fall with the market today.

I long ago stopped following the market. I couldn't tell you where CNBC is on the dial if my life depended on it. But I heard the Asian markets had rebounded from yesterday's mayhem and it was expected that the U.S. markets would follow suit. When I left the house to do some chores, the market had gone up a little, down a little and was holding steady (in the toilet) and I was still hoping Hillary would become Senate Majority Leader, Wes Clark Secretary of State, Bill Richardson Secretary of Commerce and Anybody-But-Larry Summers Secretary of the Treasury. The phone rings; it's my financial advisor-- who knows nothing about the Time Warner drama-- and he says the market is exploding. "Why?" The Market is ecstatic about Hillary, Richardson and Geithner. "Hillary?" So that's when I found out that she's going to be Secretary of State after all, and that Richardson will be Commerce Secretary and Tim Geithner, not Larry Summers, was going to Treasury. Summers will work in the White House, giving Obama bad advise, which he can take or not. Conventional wisdom is that Geithner was the best choice of everyone Obama was said to be considering.

The market closed up 494 points-- about what it lost on Thursday-- but I cleaned up on my one day "investment," which is now safely in a money market-- at least until Obama names the rest of his economic team.

McConnell Lets His Hair Down-- Admits Obstructionism and Homosexuality

With Jim DeMint (KKK-SC) breathing down his neck-- demanding the Republican Senate caucus put term limits on leadership jobs, a proposal that failed but caused tremendous rancor inside the caucus-- Mitch McConnell reiterated what his #2, Jon Kyl, has already declared-- that the GOP will filibuster anything and everything they don't like. He sent Harry Reid a threatening letter and got every single one of the Republican senators to sign it-- including the two who haven't been re-elected, Coleman and Chambliss.

Reid responded by saying that he supports working across party lines but blasting Republicans for obstructing the work of the current Congress.

“I have always said that Democrats and Republicans need to work together to pass legislation that helps people in their daily lives. After Republicans in the last Congress opted for a strategy of blocking progress, the American people clearly rejected those partisan tactics,” Reid stated.  “They have given us another opportunity to work together in the 111th Congress as the people of this country expect, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with solutions that will get our country back on track.”

As for McConnell's homosexuality... well, officially he's still in the closet for now. But he sent out a strong signal to fellow gays and those "in the know" during his speech Friday. The not all that stunning revelation came couched in a superficial analysis of the political situation the GOP finds itself in. "He said Republicans are not sorry to see President Bush leave office, given his unpopularity, and praised Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for running a 'fabulous' campaign.”

One gay activist confided that the use of "fabulous" to describe the McCain-Palin campaign is as obvious a gay signal as was Larry Craig's decades of visits to and tapping behavior in public toilets. Once McConnell realized he had outed himself, he immediately started screeching about how the GOP would protect America from the latest liberal menace: the ominous card-check. He quickly returned to bitchiness when a reporter chided him about the closeness of his re-election effort back in Kentucky.

“Let me hasten to remind you, my election was not close,” McConnell said. “I won by over 100,000 votes, I carried 87 out of 120 counties, and it was the third-largest margin I’ve ever gotten. It was contested, but it was not close.”

...McConnell on Friday said he was not disheartened by the widespread GOP losses on Nov. 4 because the party has a strong stock of governors and up-and-coming Senate leaders.

“We are beginning a slow and deliberative process of finding our way back."

True, true-- and by the mid to late 2020's, when most of the damage done by the Bush Regime and GOP dominance is cleaned up, there is every indication that the Republican Party will be ready to seriously contest elections in non-Mormon states and in states that were not previously part of the Confederacy.

Baghdad Burns Bush In Effigy-- When Will Detroit Follow Suit?

My theory about the Iraq War was always a little different from anyone else's. And it certainly had nothing to do with the NeoCon's fairy tale about liberation and a democratic domino effect in the Middle East. Nor about sweets and flowers and a square named for George Bush. It took into account the Bush Regime's utter inability to ever articulate a vision of "victory," not just an achievement of victory-- that's absurd on its face-- but even an idea of what "victory" would look like. That's because for Bush, the Iraq War was a way of telling annoying little dictators that if they messed with "us," we would destroy their country, upend their society, bring unspeakable misery to their citizens, kill their family members (and kill them as well).

For Bush-- despite what the consequences, both globally and domestically, have brought in its wake-- the mission really was accomplished. Iraq is in ruins. Once the most advanced society in the Middle East, it is now a smoldering wreck. George Bush showed them. When the puppet government's cabinet presented the parliament with an agreement extending the occupation of their country by U.S. troops-- even though the agreement is far from acceptable to the professional U.S. military or to people with genuine concern about security, or the Constitution-- fist fights broke out on the floor of parliament and the debate had to be "postponed." Today there were mass demonstrations against extending the occupation in downtown Baghdad.

So would someone be surprised to hear that an effigy of Bush was burned in Baghdad? And, fittingly, it happened in Firdous Square where the Bush effigy was placed on the same pedestal where U.S. Marines toppled the Saddam's statue in 2003 when they took over the city.

After a mass prayer, demonstrators pelted the effigy with plastic water bottles and sandals. One man hit it in the face with his sandal. The effigy fell head first into the crowd and protesters jumped on it before setting it ablaze.

Before it fell, the effigy held a sign that said: "The security agreement ... shame and humiliation."

Before he finally falls-- for good-- in this country, we should contemplate how Bush has also caused tremendous shame and humiliation for millions of American families. Fathers and husbands have to explain to their families why they have to move from their homes and uproot their lives. Those moments are very personal and inward looking. How can someone tell the family it's Bush's and the politicians' fault? It is though; they failed us dismally and, in all likelihood, criminally. Obama, of course, will just want to move on. The idea of justice, let alone retribution, is unthinkably un... un... unfair! Unfair to the rich and powerful who own everything... including the rest of us. No, it's time to move on and let's make sure we learn nothing at all from this so we can give the crooks a chance to do it again in a few decades. (The unlikely alternative: pay attention to someone really smart like Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York.)

Today Krugman's column offers a look at an alternative to burning Bush's effigy in Detroit-- or, more effectively, giving him and all the relevant participants in the looting of our society blindfolds and last cigarettes. I don't find it at all comforting and I'd much rather see trials and... appropriate punishment.

Everyone’s talking about a new New Deal, for obvious reasons. In 2008, as in 1932, a long era of Republican political dominance came to an end in the face of an economic and financial crisis that, in voters’ minds, both discredited the G.O.P.’s free-market ideology and undermined its claims of competence. And for those on the progressive side of the political spectrum, these are hopeful times.

There is, however, another and more disturbing parallel between 2008 and 1932 — namely, the emergence of a power vacuum at the height of the crisis. The interregnum of 1932-1933, the long stretch between the election and the actual transfer of power, was disastrous for the U.S. economy, at least in part because the outgoing administration had no credibility, the incoming administration had no authority and the ideological chasm between the two sides was too great to allow concerted action. And the same thing is happening now.

...There’s now a real risk that, in the absence of quick federal aid, the Big Three automakers and their network of suppliers will be forced into liquidation — that is, forced to shut down, lay off all their workers and sell off their assets. And if that happens, it will be very hard to bring them back.

I Sure Hope Obama Doesn't Give Up On Hope

I hope Barack Obama isn't wishing he never took up this whole president thing-- I have a feeling I would be if I was in his shoes. All that talk about Bush being the worst president in history? It was all true-- and more. And what he's leaving in his wake is the worst situation any president has faced that pretty much any of us alive today-- even John McCain-- has ever seen. When we warned you that everything Bush had ever touched in his life had turned to shit, we meant it-- and when we warned you that there was no reason to believe that that trend would reverse itself when he took over the White House... well that turned out to be true too.

Everything is screwed up, every single thing-- from the economy (have you heard the Asshole-in-Chief say the basics are solid lately?-- to the wars of choice he started and handled so ineptly to the most basic precepts that have bound the nation together. Can you think of anything that is going right that Bush has had anything to do with? I can't.

I'm glad Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have suspended foreclosures for a few weeks and I'm glad Citibank is renegotiating mortgages (for which the markets are destroying their stock). But what Bush and the GOP have done to the economy-- and to the basics-- for the past 8 years is so profound that there is virtually nothing that is going to hold back and equal and opposite reaction. No paddle and you know the creek we're up.

Last night I was reading that even one of the few enlightened Republican officials anywhere in the country, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, is-- as push comes to shove-- reverting to the most brutal and primal form of barbaric Republicanism. Yesterday he urged the Legislature "to allow double-digit tuition increases at all of Florida’s 11 public universities as a way of blunting the impact of state-ordered budget cuts imposed over the last two years." The GOP is always screaming how the worst thing you can do in a recession is to raise taxes. Is the best thing you can do is raise tuition?

Hillary Clinton Should Be Senate Majority Leader And Make The Job Worth Something

Today some Insider publication attacked me by referring to me as a "Democratic Party operative." They might be in for a surprise if they ever read DWT. Tonight, for example, I want to describe a member of Congress we've talked about before. He is a lazy, incompetent, corrupt old hack, a sleazy Brooklyn Democrat named Edolphus Towns who we talked about last summer in the context of a primary:

Yesterday's NY Times focused on the insurgent primary against shady Bedford Stuyvesant/Ft Greene incumbent Edolphus Towns, a corporate shill for Big Pharma and telecoms and one of the notorious CAFTA-15. He's another Al Wynn in terms of voting for The Man both on the bankruptcy bill that has devastated his own constituents and on the estate tax, which is basically fine for people who have hundreds of millions of dollars but not too good for inner city working and middle class families. The Times story doesn't mention any of Towns' many flaws-- a corporate-oriented Democrat in one of the-- if not the-- most Democratic districts in the U.S. (PVI is an astounding D+41.) Instead the Times focuses on Towns' ill-advised support for Hillary Clinton over Obama, something he shared with virtually every other Democratic elected official in New York City.

He won his primary and it looks like a plum assignment fell into his lap today: the chairmanship of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that was handled so admirably, energetically and ably by Henry Waxman (who is moving on to the Energy and Commerce Committee).

I recall that when the Republicans controlled the entire government and brazenly ran roughshod over the entire system one of the complaints was that Congress had abdicated it's oversight responsibilities and had a tacit deal with the Bush Regime allowing it to do whatever it wanted so long as members of Congress could take all the bribes they wanted. It worked great for years until some on both sides of the deal over-reached a bit more than the voters were willing to put up with. After the 2006 win by the Democrats, the slothful GOP hack, ex-Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA) was booted from the chair and suddenly the committee became a hub of oversight. (While Clinton was president, the GOP-run committee issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged presidential misconduct and wasted $35 million in the process. Only 3 subpoenas were issued while Bush was in the White House and the Republicans controlled the committee. The only noteworthy investigations they did were of Terri Schiavo and steroid use in baseball.

Today when I was contemplating the Democrats settling on a nincompoop like Towns, instead of skipping down to Carolyn Maloney, Elijah Cummings, Dennis Kucinich, Danny Davis or John Tierney, the other most senior members, I wondered if the Democratic Insider Establishment isn't just as happy having a bumbling and ineffectual fool like Towns "running" the show so that there will be as much oversight for the Obama Administration as there was under Tom Davis' for the Bush Regime.

And even if the Obama Administration starts off as a bunch of White Knights, history and common sense tell us that sooner or, hopefully later, it is going to need some serious oversight to keep from straying too far off the tracks. After all, just take a look at what Obama put in as chief of staff. No exaggeration: Bush never made a more venal and hideous appointment.

The trust the American people put in the Democrats by entrusting the House, the Senate and the White House to the party, means someone has to take oversight seriously. Wouldn't it be ironic if that someone turned out to be... Joe Lieberman!

A better solution: less of a kiss ass, beholden Senate leadership. For his own sake, the current Majority Leader should hearken to the lesson of his Democratic predecessor from South Dakota and trade in the Majority Leader's role for a powerful committee chair. In 2010, which, historically speaking, could be a good year for a Republican resurgence, Reid's seat will be up and he will be target #1 in a very purple, politically unstable state. McConnell and the Republicans will be looking for some payback and Reid would be far better off running as the moderate Democrat that he is, than as someone who has to defend the somewhat more progressive bent of the whole caucus. That's how Daschle lost.

Hillary Clinton would be a far better Majority Leader. It looks like that whole Secretary of State thing isn't happening-- or is it?-- and Democratic leaders say they're "willing" to give her an enhanced leadership role in the Senate. Screw them! She should be Leader. "Clinton asked to join the Senate Democratic leadership after the Nov. 4 election, and party leaders began trying to figure out a way to accommodate her without dislodging any of the current leaders, Democratic officials said."

The uncertainty, a week after Mr. Obama met with Mrs. Clinton in Chicago to discuss the idea of her leading the State Department, kept Washington spinning in feverish speculation about whether the two former rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination would team up. Mrs. Clinton was keeping counsel only with a tight circle of confidants, leaving even prominent veterans of the Clinton political operation guessing as to her intentions.

But driving her consideration, friends said, is a sense of disenchantment with the Senate, where despite her stature she remains low in the ranks of seniority that governs the body. She was particularly upset, they said, at the reception she felt she received when she returned from the campaign after collecting 18 million votes and almost becoming the first woman ever nominated for president by a major party.

“Her experience in the Senate with some of her colleagues has not been the easiest time for her,” said one longtime friend who insisted on anonymity in exchange for sharing Mrs. Clinton’s sentiments. “She’s still a very junior senator. She doesn’t have a committee. And she’s had some disappointing times with her colleagues.”

In particular, the friend said, Mrs. Clinton was upset when the leadership rejected the possibility of her heading a special new task force with a staff and a mandate to develop legislation expanding health care coverage... Mr. Reid wants to come up with some sort of leadership position to recognize Mrs. Clinton’s standing as one of the party’s most popular figures, and aides said he was confident that he could arrive at something with sufficient muscle to appeal to her.

And he should-- by resigning as Leader and nominating her to replace himself. Chance of that happening? Not nearly as good as Edolphus Towns becoming Chairman of the Oversight Committee. The reason I want her-- because she wouldn't be a patsy for Obama-- is just one of many reasons the hidebound Establishment is never going to let that happen-- anymore than the Republicans would consider giving John McCain a leadership role in their caucus.


UPDATE: LOOKS LIKE I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WONDERING ABOUT LETTING TOWNS FALL INTO THE CHAIRMANSHIP

Most people I talk to who are following this think Elijah Cummings (D-MD) is the best qualified for the gig and I'm hearing Waxman is prodding him to try for it. Pelosi's camp sees Towns realistically and realize he's a lazy, corrupt slug. It's likely that Councilman Charles Barron will challenge him again in 2010 and beat him this time. Hundred guys like Barron in Congress and we'd have a chance to move an actual progressive agenda forward!

A Taste Of Things To Come: Far Right Senators Filibuster Extending Unemployment Insurance

H.R. 6867, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008, was introduced by Jim McDermott (D-WA) on September 10 and it passed overwhlemingly on October 3. Only the 28 most extreme right wing Republicans voted against extending unemployment insurance to the hardest hit American families who are the worst of the victims of the Bush Economic Miracle all these Republicans voted for. Most of them are neo-Nazi backbenchers and a few of the names are all too familiar to DWT readers, like Michele Bachmann (R-MN), of course, her lunatic fringe colleagues Paul Broun (R-GA), John Shadegg (R-AZ), Steve King (R-IA), Ron Paul (R-TX), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and now ex-Rep Bill Sali, whose irate constituents had the brains and the will power to repay him in kind on election day and obliterate his disgraceful career. One less real enemy of American families we won't have to worry about again!

So why bring this up today? Well, with the latest unemployment report showing jobless claims jumping to a 16 year high and the stock market crashing on fears of a "deep recession" (a polite way of saying a Depression)-- and even Bush agreeing to sign the bill-- the Senate, after all the weeping over Ted Stevens defeat-- finally got around to considering it.

And immediately the far right of the Republican Senate caucus announces a filibuster, which means the Democrats need 60 votes to pass it. Let's hope that all the filibusters are this easy to overcome in the coming couple years. The hard core lunatic fringe Republicans who refused to vote for it were:

Jim DeMint (R-SC), who thinks he should be the leader of the opposition
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)

Bob Geiger couldn't find any kind words for this lot of scoundrels.

In one of the best Senate-floor speeches I ever heard Ted Kennedy (D-MA) give, he brutalized Senate Republicans for continuing to block the first increase in the minimum wage in almost a decade and roared to the other side of the aisle "What is it about working men and women
that you find so offensive?"

"What is it about it that drives you Republicans crazy? What is it?" asked Kennedy about GOP objections to raising the minimum wage rate. "What is the price that the workers have to pay to get an increase?"

...[S]uch fine gentlemen, these six Republicans, huh?

Hopefully, their evenings will be complete if they can only find a homeless child to kick on the way home.

Not just homeless, Bob-- sick and homeless, since these are the same legislators who have also opposed extending health care to needy children. Barrasso, Enzi and Inhofe were all just re-elected by the voters of Wyoming and Oklahoma, the majority of whom, apparently, are quite brain-dead.

If You're Wondering When The Republican Party Will Get Back To Normal... This Is As Normal As It's Going To Be For Them For A Long Time

Defiant enabler monkeys give a standing ovation to one of their own as he heads off to prison

I just heard about McCain's humiliating return to his Senate office and how he just stared straight ahead and couldn't look anyone in the eye-- not well-wishers or even his own staff. Once in his office he found that the only visitors were Arizonans requesting the hottest ticket in town, passes for Barack Obama's inauguration.

I don't feel sorry for the Republicans. Even as their standing with the American people continues to tumble drastically, they are all still playing the blame game (McCain's pollster insisted that a reporter put on the record that he thinks GOP pollster Frank Luntz is a "moron" and that he wants to break his bones) and still jockeying selfishly for position. This year the Republican Party's-- not just George Bush's-- unfavorability rating has gone from 49% to an accelerating 61%. They do, however, still embrace the Republicans and their toxic policies and agenda in many of the old slave-holding states and in most of the most backward and ill-educated districts of the Mormon West.

Inside the Beltway elites are weeping for their brother, convicted and defeated Republican felon Ted Stevens today and senators from both sides of the aisle who are likely as guilty of taking bribes as he is-- if not as blatantly-- gave him a standing ovation and tried passing him off as a "distinguished colleague" (that was Harry Reid) rather than a disgraceful criminal. After all, like Lieberman, he is them and they are him. The Senate is not capable of monitoring its own criminal tendencies and there should be some kind of an outside authority to watch this pack of crooks. Six years is too long for their terms-- and too short for prison terms for more than half of them.

Anyway, back to the Republicans' fits and lurches towards some kind of recovery: you're not going to see it any time soon. Almost 60% of them are certain that they've been so thoroughly rejected by normal Americans because the party isn't far right enough! And those are the nuts in charge now. Yes, they want a party run by witch-hunter Sarah Palin, exorcist Bobby Jindal and an assorted array of Klansmen and sociopaths. It's so much easier to let five and dime entertainment figures and hustlers like Ted Nugent, Jimmy Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly set their agenda for them than actually trying to figure out how to serve the real needs of real American families. Remember, Hitler never won a majority but he was sort of elected. Even as the leaders of the entire civilized world refuse to even shake hands with Bush on his way to obscurity and the garbage heap of history, the GOP is still trying to hang on to a shred of power so they can sabotage Barack Obama's agenda for change-- an agenda to fix what they have lain waste. They seem to be determined to go down dragging the American automotive industry with them and bragging to the public that they will obstruct whatever President Obama tries to do.

What a strange coincidence for the Repugs!

They've learned nothing from the recent drubbings the American people have given them. Corruption hasn't slowed-- a Kit Bond and Roy Blunt operative pleaded guilty today-- and partisan hacks like Kentucky's two reactionary Republicans, McConnell and Bunning, are already plotting obstructionism against the Democrats' and moderate Republicans' attempt to solve the problems in Detroit, problems acerbated, if not caused, by far right Republicans manipulating the tax code to encourage SUVs and discourage fuel efficient vehicles. So reading Politico's post today that the Senate GOP is in a big funk, shouldn't surprise anyone who's been paying a little attention.

Some are in denial. Some want a return to conservative principles. Some want to cut deals. Some want more filibusters.

Others want to jump out a window-- but they’re afraid they’d screw that up, too.

“We probably wouldn’t die,” a Republican Senate aide joked Wednesday. “We’d just lie there, hurt and suffering, which is not too much different from where we are now.”

I suspect there aren't too many DWT readers who want to rush to their assistance, unless it's to offer an NRA-approved method of finishing the job more effectively.

The Republicans’ only glimmer of good news: When Stevens-- the longest-serving Republican in Senate history-- conceded his Alaska race to Democrat Mark Begich on Wednesday, he spared them the unpleasant task of having to expel him from their caucus.

...During a closed-door Republican Conference meeting on Tuesday, DeMint offered proposals to impose term limits on the Republican leader and to restrict how long members can serve on the Appropriations Committee. The resolutions were soundly defeated, but not without bitter exchanges among the Republicans present for the meeting.

Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida said the meeting was “terrible” and “caused consternation” among his colleagues because of the dispute over DeMint’s proposals.

GOP senators met behind closed doors again on Wednesday and did a quick review of their races, with the leadership and defeated incumbents blaming Republican losses on the economic downturn and the president’s call for a $700 billion economic rescue plan.

But even this session brought a clash between GOP lawmakers, as Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Kit Bond of Missouri fought over whether Republicans should support a bailout of the auto industry, with Bond supporting it and Vitter opposed.

“Sometimes people don’t like change, but after two disastrous elections, we need it,” DeMint said. “We need to be who we say we are. The most important thing for the party is to mean something again.”

Retiring Sen. John Warner of Virginia-- who will be succeeded next year by a Democrat, former Gov. Mark Warner-- tried to lighten the mood Wednesday with some gallows humor.

Warner told of how he had gone to a straw poll in Virginia with McCain. Warner made a strong pitch for McCain at the event and figured he’d seal the deal by offering to pay for lunch for the whole crowd. When the voting was over, Texas Rep. Ron Paul had won.

In 6 days the Republican rump caucus will have a goodbye party for their departing colleagues-- Ted Stevens, John Warner, Pete Domenici, Elizabeth Dole, Wayne Allard, Gordon Smith, John Sununu, Larry Craig and Chuck Hagel. Other than people who might want to butter up probable Obama appointee Hagel-- and a few like Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell who could try getting some local cruising tips from Craig-- I suspect this is one "party" that no one will be too eager to spend much time at.

The Race To 60: Alaska, Minnesota, Georgia

Would Chambliss dare bring Bush back to Georgia for a campaign event?

By now, you surely know that Republican convicted felon and senator, Ted Stevens-- unlike sore losers GOP reps Marilyn Musgrave, Virgil Goode and Randy Kuhl-- has conceded defeat. Not sure when he'll be reporting for prison. Just kidding; he'll certainly be one of the Republicrooks Bush pardons. One assumes that Bush will refuse, as a matter of "principle," to read Russ Feingold's warning about the abuse of pardons, which in any case only addresses the really huge, heinous stuff the Bush Regime was involved in, not the bribery and corruption one expects from political hacks like Stevens.

Despite the conviction, Stevens keeps his pension, which the National Taxpayer's Union calculates at about $122,000 a year. Members of Congress can lose their pensions for being convicted of specified crimes, such as bribery and racketeering, but Stevens' offenses aren't on the list. Senators also have investment retirement accounts.

Anyway, that leaves the Democrats with 58 seats-- if you count Lieberman as a Democrat-- with 2 to go. As I mentioned the other day, I'm just a passive observer in the race to 60. But I figure readers want to know what's going on. So... let's start with Minnesota, where Paul Wellstone seems to be smiling down from Heaven. The recount started yesterday and it's all bad news for the bad guys.

By day's end, with about 18 percent of the vote recounted, Coleman continued to lead Franken -- but by only 174 votes, notably narrower than the unofficial gap of 215 votes at which the recount had begun. Franken's gain owed much to a swing of 23 votes in the Democratic stronghold of St. Louis County-- the result of faintly marked ballots and older optical scanners that failed to read the marks.

Nate Silver has a more comprehensive analysis of what happened yesterday than the Star Tribune, although the same ending, of course: a shrinking margin for Coleman (now 172 votes). The important thing to remember is that Democratic strongholds in Minneapolis and Duluth are yet to come in with their numbers, which are expected to overwhelmingly favor Franken.

Minnesota reports that it has thus far re-counted 15.49 percent of its ballots. If the first day's results are indicative of the pace that the candidates will maintain throughout the recount process, Franken would gain a net of 278 votes over Coleman, giving him a narrow victory. For any number of reasons, however, the results reported thus far may not be indicative of future trends.

Although Franken gained ground relative to Coleman, in actuality both candidates have fewer votes than they began the day with. This is because of the "challenge" process in which representatives of either candidate may challenge any ballot for any reason, which will subsequently be reviewed one at a time by Minnesota's canvassing board in December. Challenges can occur to ballots that had previously been deemed to be legal, in which case those votes will be deducted from the opponent's total. Coleman has thus far challenged 115 ballots and Franken 106. However, based on local reports, many or perhaps most of the challenges are frivolous, and are unlikely to be upheld upon review. Thus, the candidate who has challenged fewer ballots probably stands to gain ground once such challenges are adjudicated.

And that leaves Georgia's run-off. The good news for Jim Martin yesterday was an enthusiastic and very compelling endorsement from the state's biggest newspaper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Jim Martin and Sen. Saxby Chambliss may be former fraternity brothers at the University of Georgia, but they look, act, think and speak in very different ways. The two candidates in the Dec. 2 Senate runoff offer Georgia voters a stark choice.

Martin, the Democrat, has been a fighter for the little guy throughout his life, and he’s proved effective in that role. He served his country in the U.S. Army in Vietnam and as a state legislator, lawyer and head of the state Department of Human Resources. Throughout his public life he has been known as a workhorse not a showhorse, someone whose first concern was getting the job done well rather than trying to get the credit.

In fact, Martin was so well-respected for his competence and ability to work across party lines that when Gov. Sonny Perdue became the state’s first Republican governor in a century, he asked Martin to remain as head of the state Department of Human Services.

In his six years in the U.S. Senate, Chambliss has set a very different course. He fought against stricter immigration policies not out of a sense of compassion, but because easy immigration and lax enforcement served the interests of industry. When he fought against reform of farm subsidies that cost taxpayers billions, it wasn’t out of concern for the small family farmer. The reforms championed by President Bush but opposed by Chambliss would have cut payments only to huge corporate farms.

Time and again, on issue after issue, Chambliss has taken the side of the powerful and influential over those of the taxpayer and general citizen. His performance this year at a Senate hearing, in which he took the side of corporate management by browbeating a safety whistle-blower at a Savannah sugar mill, has become the stuff of legend. (A few months earlier, an explosion at the plant had killed 14 workers.)

The less good news for Martin is that the polling data shows Chambliss slightly ahead, 50-46%. Polls are less relevant in special elections like this however because the entire game is turn-out, which is expected to be low. It comes down to this: will the Republican's hysterical fear-mongering about a Democratic ability to overcome reactionary filibusters of the Obama's agenda for change trump an effort-- if there is one, which I doubt-- by Obama to win the 60 seat filibuster proof majority and get on with the change he promised in the election campaign? Bill Clinton was in Georgia explaining the damage a filibuster will do. If Obama goes down there and does it, Martin will win. (And a radio spot is only a halfway effort and won't do the trick.) If he doesn't, Chambliss will be re-elected:

Hoyer Singing Republican Party Talking Points, But Waxman Kicks Dingell's Ass Anyway... As Blue Dogs Howl In The Wind

Poor Nancy

It was a secret ballot yesterday and it was a secret ballot today, so I guess we'll never know, but I'd put money down that Hoyer voted for Dingell over Waxman at the Steering Committee meeting and again today at the full caucus. (Waxman won 137-122.) Hoyer's not a Blue Dog; he just plays one on the national stage. His role as Majority Leader puts the lie to the sop that the Democrats are a progressive party.

I just thought of Hoyer as another corrupt hack before the Democrats won back a House majority in 2006 when his office asked me to interview him, pleased that I was not jumping on the Murtha bandwagon like most progressive bloggers, grateful for Murtha's sudden stand against Bush's war policies. My memory of Murtha's shocking and career-long reactionary politics and unabashed Republican-like corruption wasn't going away just because he finally was taking a stand against Bush on something he had been actively collaborating on. Anyway, Hoyer's people didn't care that I had equally negative feelings about Hoyer, just as long as I bashed up Murtha and agreed not to call Hoyer a "shill" while I was on the phone with him. On the phone, I found out that Hoyer, much like Lieberman, was once an idealistic young progressive who actually believed in and fought for the values that have attracted people to the Democratic Party... despite the fact that power is in the hands of people like Hoyer and Emanuel.

Today, long after the idealism has been dead and buried for decades, Hoyer seems to see himself as a brake on the aspirations of working families. He seems to have assigned himself the role of "adult" who keeps the idealists in check and spinning their wheels so they can't do anything harmful. He can always be counted on to internalize GOP talking points and then spout them out again to anyone who will listen. Tuesday they were listening at the National Press Club. He said the lame duck session of Congress might extend into December so that the automobile industry problems could be worked on. Nice of him. Congress Daily:

"We do believe dealing with the automakers is a pressing need." In his speech, Hoyer warned the liberal wing of his party about the need to govern from the middle if Democrats want to build a lasting majority. He said that the party's majority status was possible because Democrats convinced independent voters that the party can govern responsibly during times of crisis. "For the first time in decades, we are a true national majority party, and if we want to stay that way, we must govern like one," he said." The 33 new members coming to town "are pragmatic, not dogmatic. They were elected on promises of bipartisanship and fiscal discipline. They were elected, quite simply, to solve problems, not further politicize Washington."

Well, who's going to stand up and say, "Hey gramps, I was elected instead of a right-wing jackass to solve real problems that are the result of policies shoved down our throats by right-wing jackasses... and their enablers from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, like yourself?" No one. And who, after all, isn't pragmatic?

Sure a boatload of corporate hacks and Hoyer-like shills were elected to Congress but, thanks largely to the Democratic grassroots, so were real progressives like Alan Grayson (FL), Tom Perriello (VA), Jared Polis (CO), Mark Schauer (MI), Eric Massa (NY), Donna Edwards (MD), Jim Himes (CT), Larry Kissell (NC), Gary Peters (MI), Martin Heinrich (NM), Dan Maffei (NY). I've talked to each of them and they are all "pragmatic." They all want to get things accomplished. And they are all dedicated to furthering the interests of working families above and beyond the corporate interests Steny Hoyer slowly but surely became a captive of.

[UPDATE: Did Obama's team help Waxman stick it to the Blue Dogs?]

Maybe Dick Pombo Wouldn't Be The Best Suicide Prevention Counsellor For Marilyn Musgrave

Suicide is painless

A few weeks ago we talked about how, in 1963, Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc captured the attention of Vietnam-- and that of many in America-- by killing himself, the method a very public self-immolation. I know Republican members of Congress, both those experiencing their last days at the public trough like Ric Keller and Robin Hayes, and those who have been left behind and feel the noose tightening-- how many more fundraising days before November, 2010?-- are down in the dumps.

Few, however are as down and dumpy as extremist loon Marilyn Musgrave, whose constituents turned her out in an angry landslide against her right-wing values and right-wing voting record. Not even Mark Sanford, Tony Perkins and Grover Norquist could make the preposterous claim that her overwhelming defeat was anything but Colorado voters giving a big thumbs down to the far right and all it stands for.

Musgrave is the nastiest of this year's batch of discarded Republicans. While some, like the aforementioned Ric Keller and Robin Hayes are moping around the gloomy Republican Capitol Hill Club asking long defeated old hacks like Dirty Dick Pombo how to drum up some lobbying business, Musgrave is refusing to face reality. Like Virgil Goode (R-VA) and Randy Kuhl (R-NY), Musgrave has been unwilling to concede defeat, even though she lost by double digits. Perhaps she has already heard Pombo's bleak assessment of what lies in store for defeated wingnuts-- he admits he's been "scrounging for business"-- but Musgrave has been in hiding.

Not congratulating the victor may be rude but it's far from unheard of from Republican losers. But Musgrave has gone way beyond that, refusing to even thank her dedicated-- if delusional-- campaign staff for their hard work on her behalf. She's hardly a Buddhist or a monk-- she's a Pentecostal Assemblies of God fanatic-- but wouldn't it just be a national tragedy if she set herself on fire on the steps of Capitol Hill? No one in recent times has put more pure hatred and vitriol into tormenting gay families than Marilyn Musgrave and making their lives more difficult and dangerous.

Heavenly Day-- Waxman Defeats Dingell: Blue Dogs Go Down To Disastrous Defeat

Yes we can! Waxman vanquishes the filthy Blue Dogs!

I hope this isn't too inside baseball for everybody. If it is, just skip down to the nice song at the bottom. It's been somewhat drowned out by the intensity of the faux battle over Joe Lieberman's Homeland Security Committee chair, but there has been another battle in Congress pitting a progressive against a... non-progressive. John Dingell, the longest serving member of Congress, has been the auto industry's #1 shill in the House. The $897,915 he's taken from the industry in legalized bribes is more than any other member of Congress besides McCain and when you only count the auto manufacturers, Dingell's $625,725 in contributions is more than the #2 and #3 recipients combined. They like him; he does whatever they want-- and when they take the heads of the Big 3 out behind the barn, they should drag Dingell out back with them.

Yeah, yeah... that'll never happen... but... this morning the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee gave Dingell a stinging rebuke by voting 25-22 to recommend making Henry Waxman chairman of the powerful Energy & Commerce Committee, which Dingell has used to work with the Bush Regime and the car manufacturers in preventing reasonable increases in CAFE standards for automobiles. Progressives generally lined up behind Waxman and Dingell was championed by the Blue Dogs, New Dems and generally reactionary members from the Republican Wing of the Democratic Party (and members from his home state, Michigan). Most of the more corrupt members of the Congressional Black Caucus are also supporting Dingell. Tomorrow the full House will elect the chairmen of that committee (plus Appropriations, Financial Services, and Ways & Means.

Waxman, D-Calif., has long clashed with Dingell by pushing for stronger environmental laws and is expected to draw support from fellow liberals. Waxman, who is currently chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is aligned with Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

Pelosi has remained publicly neutral in the race for the Energy and Commerce panel chairmanship, but many Democrats doubt Waxman would have attempted the challenge without her tacit support.

Some Democrats have expressed concern that ousting Dingell would upset the seniority system and divide the caucus at a moment when the party has won the White House and cemented its hold on Congress.

Votes in the Steering Committee are conducted by secret ballot.

Democrats said the last time the Steering Committee declined to nominate the top Democrat on a committee to remain in that position was in 1996, when Henry B. Gonzalez of Texas was rejected as ranking member of the Banking panel.

The full caucus overturned that decision.

Although there are 4 members not currently on the Steering Committee (the 4 chairs mentioned above who need to be elected), these are the members:

Speaker, Steering & Policy Chair Nancy Pelosi
Steering Co-Chair Rosa DeLauro
Policy Co-Chair George Miller
Vice Chair Marion Berry
Vice Chair Hilda Solis
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
Majority Whip James Clyburn
Democratic Caucus Chair John Larson
Democratic Caucus Vice-Chair Xavier Becerra
DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen
Organization, Study and Review Chair Michael Capuano
Senior Chief Deputy Whip John Lewis
Chief Deputy Whip G.K. Butterfield
Chief Deputy Whip Joseph Crowley
Chief Deputy Whip Diana DeGette
Chief Deputy Whip Ed Pastor
Chief Deputy Whip Jan Schakowsky
Chief Deputy Whip John Tanner
Chief Deputy Whip Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Chief Deputy Whip Maxine Waters
Budget Chair John Spratt
Rules Chair Louise Slaughter
Dennis Cardoza
Kathy Castor
Jerry Costello
Artur Davis
Lloyd Doggett
Rush Holt
Marcy Kaptur
Zoe Lofgren
Doris Matsui
Kendrick Meek
Collin Peterson
Tim Ryan
Nydia Velazquez
Add to that two freshmen, Debbie Halvorson and Jared Polis, and the 12 regional whips:
Linda Sanchez
Jerry McNerney
Tammy Baldwin
Jan Schakowsky (she only has one vote, even though she's on the list twice)
Rick Larsen
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Bob Etheridge
Ron Klein
James Moran
Robert Brady
Jerrold Nadler
John Tierney

OK, so what happens tomorrow. Pelosi had control over the Steering Committee (barely) but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the full caucus swings with the Blue Dogs and sticks with Dingell. Something to look forward to tomorrow... more with trepidation than with optimism. [Not such a Heavenly Day for the filthy reactionary Blue Dogs-- Waxman won the chairmanship away from Dingell as the myth of Blue Dog power crumbled.]

Because I used to work at a record company I still get tons of demos from aspiring artists. It makes no sense because "used to" means "now I'm a blogger and I don't do music biz anymore." Most of the demos aren't very good and I rarely stick them up at DWT or pass them along to the Late Night Music Club. Yesterday, however, a guy in Montana, Patrick Dwyer, sent me this simple performance YouTube he made of himself singing a Patty Griffin classic, "Heavenly Day." What do you think? Should I send this fella to meet some A&R guys?

Who does this Obama fellow think he's trying to impress with his fancy-pants way of talking -- in, you know, complete sentences?

After eight years of presidential war on verbal
sense, this is going to take some getting used to.

I was lucky in that the way this post (from HuffPost) was passed on to me, I didn't know until the end who wrote it. So I'm presenting it here the same way. -- Ken

Obama's Use of Complete
Sentences Stirs Controversy

In the first two weeks since the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the past eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.

Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama's appearance on CBS's 60 Minutes on Sunday witnessed the president-elect's unorthodox verbal tick, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth.

But Mr. Obama's decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring.

According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, some Americans might find it "alienating" to have a president who speaks English as if it were his first language.

"Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement," says Mr. Logsdon. "If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist."

The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, the public may find itself saying, "Okay, subject, predicate, subject predicate -- we get it, stop showing off."

The president-elect's stubborn insistence on using complete sentences has already attracted a rebuke from one of his harshest critics, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

"Talking with complete sentences there and also too talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder can't really do there, I think needing to do that isn't tapping into what Americans are needing also," she said.

Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com.

A chorus of Senate Dems cries out, "Welcome Back, Joe!" (And thanks, President-elect Obama!)

Is that Sen. Barbara Boxer finishing up preparations

for the Dem Senate caucus's "Welcome Back, Joe" bash?

by Ken

An online list colleague was venting suspicion as to the absolute solidarity of our friend Senator Lieberman now that he's been so happily restored to the bosom of the Senate Democratic caucus. Specifically, he was casting doubt as to our Joe's absolute reliability as a clinching 60th vote. Actually, what he said was:

"I will bet my now substantially reduced life savings on this: Joe will never, ever be the 60th vote."

Shocked by this cynicism, I tried to set him straight:

I bet "The 60" are going to have, like, a group photo taken, which they'll all autograph with wacky little in-jokes (that DiFi can be such a cut-up!), and they'll all hang theirs on the walls of their Senate cubicles (I bet those U.S. senators have the real big ones, with room for, like, pictures of their pets in funny hats), and they'll all hang out together and always buy each other goofy little gifts just to show they care, and they'll make each other hot cocoa late at night while telling legislative horror stories (you just know Joey L will bring the tiny marshmallows), and if somebody needs a kidney they'll all line up to be tested, and they'll just generally be BFFs.

(Okay, well, there might be only 47 people in the photo -- the other 13 being listed as officially "camera-shy.")

#

Boehner Beats Lungren As Minority Leader-- But Is Forced To Take On Two Far Right Extremists

100 bottles of beer on the wall, 100 bottles of beer...

Republican members of Congress like Boehner cause he's so hands off and lets them do whatever they want and because he keeps the corporate cash flowing their way-- even though this cycle was the first time since 1994 that slimy corrupt PACs gave more to Dems than to Repugs. But they have managed to notice that there are almost 5 dozen fewer of them than there were before Boehner took over. And it isn't only that the GOP is failing to win open seats in red districts-- which they are failing to do spectacularly-- but that they are also seeing, despite all the carefully crafted incumbent protection schemes in place-- colleagues being defeated in every part of the country. This month they watched GOP hotshots like Robin Hayes (NC), Joe Knollenberg (MI), Tim Walberg (MI), Randy Kuhl (NY), Virgil Goode (VA), Thelma Drake (VA), Marilyn Musgrave (CO), Chris Shays (CT), Steve Chabot (OH), Jon Porter (NV), Ric Keller (FL), Tom Feeney (FL) all lose their seats, some in landslides. On top of that, another two dozen more managed to eke out another 2-year term by the skin of his or her teeth, guaranteeing well-financed challenges in 2010. Among those who just barely escaped near death experiences are rightists John Shadegg (AZ), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), Michael McCaul (TX), Brian Bilbray (CA), Mean Jean Schmidt (OH), Michele Bachmann (MN), Ken Calvert (CA), Dean Heller (NV), Henry Brown (SC), Judy Biggert (IL), Dana Rohrabacher (CA), David Dreier (CA), Thaddeus McCotter (MI), Dave Reichert (WA), Jim Gerlach (PA), Addison Wilson (SC) and Dan Lungren (CA).

And speaking of Lungren's near loss-- he barely managed to win 50% of the votes-- he made a lunatic attempt to unseat Boehner today on behalf of all the GOP's walking wounded. He only got a small handful of votes against the seemingly teflon Boehner. "It's as though the captain of the Titanic survived and got tapped to run another transatlantic cruise."

But the Republican caucus did force the hapless but well-tanned and weepy Boehner to accept two radical right extremists, Mike Pence (IN) and Eric Cantor (VA) as his #2 and #3, scapegoating Roy Blunt (MO) and Howdy Doody (FL) as the culprits in the disaster that the Republican House caucus just went through. Tom Cole (OK), a dismal failure, was booted out of his job as NRCC chair-- how did he last as long as he did??-- and replaced by Pete Sessions (TX), who is likely to be even more inept and a bigger failure.

Blunt and Doody are terrible leaders; no doubt about it. But were they responsible for the spectacular losses this year? Of course not. God was. And although if He exists I'm sure he recognizes the GOP as the enemy of all Creation, I'm not talking about this-- or rather conservative columnist Kathleen Parker (in today's Washington Post) isn't-- in terms of God hating Republicans.

[T]he evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh.

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth-- as long as we're setting ourselves free-- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

The choir has become absurdly off-key, and many Republicans know it.

...It isn't that culture doesn't matter. It does. But preaching to the choir produces no converts. And shifting demographics suggest that the Republican Party-- and conservatism with it-- eventually will die out unless religion is returned to the privacy of one's heart where it belongs.

Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.

Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.

The dominant Know Nothing/KKK wing of the party, however, sees it differently. That's because in their backward, dark precincts, bigotry, racism, homophobia, hatred and a dependence on ignorance and fear works for them. Know Nothing hacks like Mark Sanford (R-SC), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and, of course, Miss Alaska are driving the train as it hurtles over the Bridge to... you guessed it.

You've got the lunatic fringe-- now the GOP mainstream-- screaming that McCain is a traitor to conservatism and that they need to clean house and make the Republican Party the exclusive domain of witch hunters, exorcists and hooded knights like Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal, and Mark Sanford.

That Republicans are coalescing around these three governors is also revealing for who is not included. Several years ago Christie Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and EPA administrator, wrote a book called It's My Party Too. She used that treatise to argue for the party to abandon its conservative roots. Even after two serious GOP drubbings at the polls, she has found no takers. Likewise, Lincoln Chaffee, the former Rhode Island Senator once labeled a "Republican in Name Only," was still complaining last week to the Washington Post that "right-wing talk show hosts and the Ann Coulters and that ilk" never understood that the GOP needs people like him.

The Danger Of Jindal-- Guest Post By Stacey Tallitsch

Bobby Jindal-- he does a mean exorcism

Here at DWT we first came across Stacey Tallitsch when he was running for Congress in Louisiana's first district in 2006. His opponent was then-freshman Congressman Bobby Jindal and Stacey ran as an unabashed anti-war, grassroots progressive. The DCCC ran in the other direction and Jindal won. We loved Stacey's platform at the time and if he would have been in the U.S. Senate today (yeah, yeah, he was running for the House), instead of corporate whore Mary Landrieu there's no doubt he would have joined Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy, Jeff Merkley, Barbara Boxer and a handful of others attempting to remove the gavel from Holy Joe Lieberman's clenched fist. In fact Stacey would have done that in 2006. A few days ago John Amato and I touched based with him and asked him for an inside look at a danger to America developing on the far right: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Here's Stacey's report:

It is really gratifying seeing the GOP in such disarray, and I too want that feeling to last a very long time. But, at the risk of being a buzz-kill, the one we really need to pay attention to is the Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal.

I ran against Jindal in '06 when he was running for his second term in Congress. My campaign was aggressive and one of my commercials was even posted on C&L, FDL, and DWT. However, I walked away with only 4% of the vote. Never mind that most of my "friendly precincts" were still refugees from Katrina and couldn't vote, Jindal was still very popular in the KKK friendly areas of the district.

To put it plainly, imagine if Barack Obama used his political skills for (lack of a better word) “evil” instead of the common good.  Well, if you can’t imagine Obama doing that, instead look to Bobby Jindal and no imagination is required.

Jindal is as savvy as they come. When he was in Congress, the 109th, which enacted the vast majority of the draconian laws we’ve all come to know, Jindal voted with Bush 99.99% of the time. Yet has recently said that this year’s election wasn’t the fault of the Republican philosophy, but of Bush, and never mind all those bills Jindal helped push through on Bush’s behalf.

Case in point, the only time Jindal ever voted “against Bush” was on CAFTA. Nothing wrong with that, you say? Except when the vote was taking place, House Speaker Dennis Hastert held the 15 minute vote open for three hours and forty-five minutes, while Asst. Whip Bobby Jindal strong-armed other Congressmen, including Democrats to pass CAFTA, and once the votes were secured, Jindal voted against it.

The Louisiana Sugar and Shrimp lobby were against CAFTA, and Bobby Jindal got to have his cake and... ate it like a pig.

Typical behavior for Bobby Jindal. He’s first in line to take credit for something he had nothing to do with, and always has an exit strategy if things go south.

Jindal's Strengths:

• He's an "ideas-man" and talks faster than most northerners, which gives the impression he's a bottomless well of new ideas. Like a Gatling gun, he'll name every accomplishment he's ever had over the last 20 years in less than 30 seconds.

• As a Rhodes Scholar, he's extremely intelligent, savvy, and media-minded. (The Iraqi-purple finger in the SOTU was his idea.)

• He's a Zen-master of whisper campaigns. He projects an image of "moderate" while at the same time stays the darling of the craziest ding-bats of the Religious Right. In public he's a fiscal conservative, in private he's a social conservative. The epitome of a "Wolf in sheep's clothing."

• He excretes strength in times of weakness. In the last hurricane season, Jindal took credit for the levee's not breaking in New Orleans and so little damage in comparison with Democrat Governor. It was as if Jindal had confronted the storm with a commandment of "Be still," at least that’s the image he wanted to project.

• He never publically goes negative. But, has an army of fringe groups who act as his behalf.

• He is Obama’s evil doppelganger.

Jindal’s Weaknesses:

• He’s a whore to big oil.

• He’s a whore to big pharma.

• He’s a whore to the Religious Right.

• The KKK thinks he walks on water. 

It is true that he once wrote an article for a Catholic magazine expounding on his experience in performing an exorcism on a female “friend.” And, as much as I would love to include that as a weakness, the media has proven with Sarah Palin’s witch-hunter background, no one cares.

If Jindal has one weakness above all its vanity. In many places around the world there is the emanate threat of death, but there is no place more dangerous than getting between a camera and Bobby Jindal.

A Worldwide Contraction Featuring Concerts In Romania And A Republican Drive To Sell GM To China

There's always concerts like this...

This morning I woke up to the news that consumer prices had dropped. In fact they dropped more than any time in 61 years, due mostly to how gas prices, which had driven them up so drastically this year, have fallen back. NY Times: "The Labor Department reports that consumer prices fell by 1 percent last month, the biggest one-month decline on records that go back to February 1947." A few days we talked about how the cost of drastically over-priced tickets are coming down as well, both for concerts and sporting events. No demand, lots of supply.

This morning I spoke with my old friend Cristian, one of the top concert promoters in Romania. He's trying to bring one of the bands I used to work with to play the 22,000 seat Cotroceni Stadium in Bucharest. The band commands one million dollars for a show. His budget also includes the cost of the venue ($37,800), the production and technical costs (around $35,000) and the promotion and marketing (around $6,500). The audience for this band ranges from 15 to 35 years old and unemployment is a problem. "A lot of people get the money for the tickets from their parents," he told me. The tickets in Romania go for $30, which means he will bring in $660,000 if he sells out. The band are huge and they've never played in Romania. He is certain they will sell out easily (hence the minimal marketing and promotion budget). But that still leaves a deficit of $420,000!

The gap is normally made up by a sponsor or a group of sponsors. Last year Vodaphone paid around a million dollars to sponsor the Rolling Stones concert there. Other sponsors of concerts include Coca Cola, Volkswagen, Mercedes, beer companies... big international brands. This year market uncertainty is putting a major crimp on marketing budgets. This year Cristian has done successful concerts with Placebo, Muse, Massive Attack and other bands and this was his biggest year and the Romanian concert industry's biggest year. But he's not sure if they'll be seeing growth for 2009 even though Depeche Mode and AC/DC have already announced concerts there.

There seems to be a global contraction in the economy and it goes way beyond concert tickets. This morning vulture capitalist Mitt Romney pushed GOP talking points in an OpEd in the NY Times urging Congress to let the entire U.S. automative industry go bankrupt. Romney was once a top executive in one of the worst predator investment firms to ever stalk American Business, Bain Capital. They would buy up distressed firms for pennies on the dollar, fire the employees, slash budgets, sell off assets, suck whatever life was left in the company and leave a smoldering ruin. Emptywheel has summed Romney's proposal up very well, Let the retirees starve. The bane of Bain-- and of all elitist swine like Romney-- has always been organized labor and the aspirations of "common people" to live like millions. How can the Romney's and people like them have hundreds of millions if so many pesky workers are clamoring for sustainable livings?

This morning Thomas Frank writes in the Wall Street Journal that ex-Home Depot CEO Bernie Marcus, another Romney type cancer on society, was moaning that "This is the demise of civilization," this being working men and women wanting to get a fair share of the benefits of their labor. And Bernie knows just what the elite must do about it.

"If a retailer has not gotten involved with this, if he has not spent money on this election, if he has not sent money to Norm Coleman and these other guys," Mr. Marcus said, apparently referring to Republican senators facing tough re-election fights, then those retailers "should be shot; should be thrown out of their goddamn jobs."

Frank asks us to consider a quote from union-busting reactionary piece of shit Lee Scott (CEO of social criminals WalMart): "We like driving the car and we're not going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us." Yes, they do-- and they've driven the automakers into a ditch and driven our economy into a ditch and driven the lives of millions of Americans over the cliff. They're lucky that a moderate like Obama was elected president and not a leftist who would begin the repairs to America by eliminating the cause.

GOP plans also call for the continued selling off of America to other countries. The General Motors and Chrysler Romney and the Republicans in Congress are clamoring to put into bankruptcy are targets for China. Look at the Japanese anti-union car manufacturers in Alabama-- anti-GM fanatic Richard Shelby's impoverished, backward, Republican-leaning feudal state. That's the model and that's why traitors to this country, like Romney and Shelby and Kyl and McConnell (China's man on the ground), want to drive the auto companies out of business.

60 Seats? Who Cares?

Reactionary crook defeated in Alaska

I have nothing against the Democrats getting 60-- or 70-- votes in the Senate. In fact, every Republican defeated is a step, more or less, in the right direction. Last night when Blue America-endorsed Mark Begich was finally declared the winner in Alaska-- the first Democrat to win a Senate seat in that bizarre former Russian colony since Mike Gravel-- I would have opened a bottle of something for a toast if I was a drinking man. Instead, I thought, "Mark's a good man and all it cost Blue America was six grand; let's hope it was worth it."

The Senate is an intensely conservative body. It was meant to be. They call it the world's most exclusive club. In fact, just a few years ago arch-reactionary Zell Miller (GA), who was appointed to a seat opened up by the death of a Republican, proposed a constitutional amendment repealing the 17th, which gave voters the right to elect senators. Ole Zell believes that was way too progressive and that senators should be chosen by (easily-bribed) state legislatures, not by the unwashed masses (who he referred to as "special interests").

There was never any real chance the Senate was going to discipline Joe Lieberman. In the end only 13 members voted to do it-- far more than the small handful of unabashed reactionaries who actually campaigned for him in Connecticut against the Democratic Party candidate, Ned Lamont. They love Lieberman because he's one of them. Any of them could empathize with his predicament. They all like to think of themselves as independent (at least independent of anyone not giving them direct bribes). What a crappy job Harry Reid has, keeping all these assholes on the same page!

OK, so last night Stevens was defeated bringing the Democratic majority to at least 58. An intense recount procedure looms for Minnesota, where only 206 votes separates Al Franken and rubber stamp incumbent Norm Coleman. And early voting has already begun in the December 2nd Georgia run-off between Jim Martin and Saxby Chambliss.

Political insiders are all excited about all this stuff. Should the grassroots be? I'm not so certain. Sure, I think Norm Coleman and Saxby Chambliss are two of the absolute worst members of the U.S. Senate and each makes the place an even bigger disgrace than it would be without them. And both Franken and Martin seem like decent and conscientious guys. (Even Allen Buckley, the Libertarian candidate who threw the Georgia race into a run-off, thinks Martin is a better choice.) I'm rootin' for him and Franken. But no fund drives at Blue America. We've given enough this year. And what did we get in return? Joe Lieberman smirking on TV. If I lived in Georgia I'm sure I'd go vote for Martin. If the pitiful slobs in the Senate Democratic caucus want him to win... they're stinking rich and basically take as much in bribes from corporate America as the Republicans do-- if not more. This will be expensive but they don't need our money. We'll be saving it for primaries in 2010.

Obama Names Eric Holder Attorney General-- Dick Cheney Indicted

Cheney is still at large-- armed and extremely dangerous

The two things, alas, are not connected. Cheney and Alberto Gonzales were indicted by a Willacy, Texas grand jury on 7 state charges stemming from prisoner abuse. But this isn't any of the Geneva Convention stuff Mr. Holder would be getting ready to look into if this was really a nation of laws. The Texas grand jury indicted them on charges involving local prisons. It looks like a crazy case by a crazy district attorney and it looks like it won't even rise to the level of nuisance suit-- although I'm sure Cheney and Gonzales are guilty of whatever and more. Doesn't this sound just like him?

Cheney is charged with engaging in an organized criminal activity related to the vice president's investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds financial interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees because of his link to the prison companies.

...The indictment accuses Gonzales of using his position while in office to stop an investigation in 2006 into abuses at one of the privately-run prisons.

As for Holder, let's wait and see. I don't know a lot about him other than that he was a Deputy Attorney General under Clinton and an Acting Attorney General when Bush took over and before the Senate choked back the vomit in its mouth and endorsed Ashcroft, but I do know that he'll be the nation's first African-American Attorney General, something I'm sure will agitate the dominant KKK wing of the Republican Party. Today's Time has a good speech he gave a few days ago to the American Constitution Society about the need to reverse "the disastrous course" set by the Bush Torture Regime.

“Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the ‘War on Terror' have diminished our standing in the world community and made us less, rather than more, safe. For the sake of our safety and security, and because it is the right thing to do, the next president must move immediately to reclaim America's standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights.”

Expect to hear the wingnuts howling that he had something to do with Clinton's pardon of wingnut substitute bete noir Marc Rich.



H/T- Crooks & Liars for the video

Why Does Detroit Make Big Gas Guzzlers And Who Should We Hang?

Midway through Bush's first term, the attempts to encourage U.S. car manufacturers to invest in fuel efficient vehicles were beaten back by Tom Delay and the Republican Party through manipulation of the tax code. The GOP made it far more attractive to buy a big gas guzzling SUV than a small car by offering enormous tax loopholes for Escalades, Hummers, Lincoln Navigators, Suburbans and other mammoth monstrosities. They defiantly pushed Detroit into making more clunkers. Except for a small handful of reactionary Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- like Jane Harman, Steve Israel, Bud Cramer, Lipinski... this kind of human refuse-- all the Democrats in the House voted no and all the Republicans but one moderate (Connie Morella from Maryland) voted yes.

So today we hear Republicans like Jon Kyl braying about how we should let the car companies go bankrupt because they were so stupid and incompetent for making the wrong product choices. What about Republican congressmen who mandated those decisions with their votes-- then representatives/now senators like Jim DeMint (R-SC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), David "Diapers" Vitter (R-LA), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and John Sununu (R-NH); and then backbenchers/now GOP leaders like John Boehner (R-0H), Eric Cantor (R-VA), David Dreier (R-CA), Adam Putnam (R-FL), Roy Blunt (R-MO), and Mike Pence (R-IN)? Today they're not braying about their past votes, only working diligently to further cripple the American labor movement and continue the economic enslavement of the working and middle class.

Let me quote a bit from wikipedia's description of Section 179 of the relevant IRS Code, which allows for deductions for certain types of property on their income taxes.

Up to $25,000 of the cost of vehicles rated at not less than 14,000 lb gross vehicle rate can be deducted using a section 179 deduction. This deduction was enacted decades ago to assist self-employed people in purchasing a vehicle for business use. The weight minimum was intended to limit it to commercial-type trucks. For many years, the deduction remained below the average cost of a new vehicle, since large trucks were relatively inexpensive. Since it is a reduction in taxable income, the actual value of this deduction averages 30% of the price of the vehicle in question.

The increasing popularity of large vehicles such as sport utility vehicles in the last decade, however, pushed their average price to nearly double the average passenger car cost. In response, the 2002 Tax Act increased this deduction to $75,000, and it rose again to $100,000 for the 2003 tax year. This was more than three times the current average cost of a passenger car in the United States, and covered a large number of luxury models.

Critics felt that this deduction unfairly benefit buyers of heavy, and thus fuel-inefficient, vehicles. Indeed, the actual value of this deduction is far larger than the exemptions offered for alternative fuel vehicle purchasers. Further, some have suggested creating a small business simply to exploit this "loophole". Proponents contend that it benefits both small business owners and the United States automobile industry. Congress has since lowered the allowable deduction: as of October 22, 2004, only $25,000 may be deducted using section 179. In contrast, the maximum first year deduction for a passenger automobile is $10,610. Any excess cost may be deducted in future years.

Brother, can you spare 40,280,000,000,000 dimes?

-by Woid


Fun with numbers dept.

You know that $700,000,000,000 our country seems to have mislaid somewhere? That's nothing.

In the past year, you and I have spent a total of $4.28 TRILLION on the "financial crisis"--more than the U.S. spent on all of World War II. 

Hey, 700 billion here, 700 billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

We went to the moon for $237 billion. The New Deal cost $500 billion. The entire War of Terror (as Borat calls it)-- including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq-- comes to less than $600 billion.

And just now we've allocated that $700 billion (a starter payment... this may turn out to be one of those balloon deals), gift-wrapped for those same wonderful people who wrecked the markets and the economy in the first place-- with no strings attached. I believe they're spending it on money clips.

It's easier to say "four trillion," but that's a hell of a rounding error. The 28 to the right of the decimal point is enough by itself to pay for putting a man on the moon in the 60s, or, if you prefer, the Louisiana Purchase. Or the Manhattan Project, maybe with a couple of Panama Canals thrown in.

All adjusted for inflation, of course.

How many universal health care programs, or alternative energy programs, or environmental repair programs, or poverty relief programs, would that kind of money pay for? I don't know, I'm asking.

Remember when the Bushies claimed that the outgoing Clinton staff took all the "W"s off the keyboards, and trashed the offices? That was a lie, by the way. 

Now look at what they're doing as they go out the door, on their way to be reunited with our money... now in the hands of their friends, along with those other profits from the wars, "defense," "homeland security," oil, and all of the many scams and boondoggles.

[Pulls out pockets — moths fly out.]


UPDATE: MORE NUMBERS

How's this for a stat? "New government figures show that almost 700,000 children went hungry in the United States at some point in 2007, up more than 50 percent from the year before to mark the highest point since 1998. And that's even before this year's sharp economic downtown, the Agriculture Department reported Monday. The department's annual report on food security showed that during 2007 the number of children who suffered a substantial disruption in the amount of food they typically eat was more than double the 430,000 in 2006 and the largest figure since 716,000 in 1998." And that's here, not Mali.

And here's a numbers quote from a random page-- literally; it's the page (92) I was on when I sat down to dinner after formatting Woid's post-- from Barbara Ehrenreich's newest book, This Land Is Your